Morel v. United States

Background

Lenin Morel filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 while representing himself. He challenged his conviction and sentence based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Morel had pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged participation in a racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(c). The court sentenced him to 262 months in prison, based in part on his admission that he participated in the murder of Miguel Perez.

Johnson Claim

Johnson held that the residual-clause definition of “crime of violence” in a federal firearms statute was unconstitutionally vague. The court ruled that Johnson did not apply to Morel’s conviction because Morel had not pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the racketeering-conspiracy offense did not require participation in a “crime of violence” or contain a comparable residual clause.

The court also rejected Morel’s challenge to his sentence. It stated that the sentence was within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range calculated by the parties and the court, and that the available record did not show that a guideline provision resembling the language addressed in Johnson affected that calculation. The court further relied on Beckles v. United States, which held that advisory Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge because they guide sentencing discretion rather than establish the legally permitted sentencing range.

Review of the Record and Disposition

The court additionally reviewed the record of Morel’s guilty plea and sentencing and found no problem in the proceedings. It denied Morel’s petition as meritless and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.