VALENZUELA v. UNITED STATES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Luis Valenzuela appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

Valenzuela contends that the district court erred by denying as untimely his section 2255 motion. He argues that the motion was timely because it was filed within one year of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), and the logic of Johnson extends to the residual clause of the mandatory career-offender guideline under which he was sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3); U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2. This argument is foreclosed because “Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.” United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2762, 204 L.Ed.2d 1146 (2019). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that section 2255(f)(3) does not apply and that Valenzuela's motion is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).

AFFIRMED.