Vargas v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:16-cv-05044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vargas v. United States, Judge Caproni ordered Vargas to explain why his sentence challenge should not be withdrawn or summarily dismissed.
Nelson Vargas, whose sentence-challenge petition was at issue, and the United States, which could be required to respond.
What happened
In Vargas v. United States, Nelson Vargas asked the court to set aside his 1991 sentence through a petition challenging the sentencing rules used in his case.
Vargas argued that the mandatory career-offender Guidelines' definition of a “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that the petition was filed within one year after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, which invalidated a similar provision.
Because the Second Circuit had recently held in Nunez v. United States that a similar petition was untimely, Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Vargas to explain by April 28, 2020, why his petition should not be withdrawn or summarily dismissed. The court did not dismiss the petition in this order.
The detailed version
- Vargas v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05044
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 15, 2020
Background
Nelson Vargas filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his 1991 sentence. He argued that the career-offender Sentencing Guidelines, which were mandatory when he was sentenced, defined “crime of violence” using a residual clause that was unconstitutionally vague. The petition was filed in the civil case associated with his criminal case, No. 88-CR-325-2 (VEC).
Legal context
The court noted that Vargas filed his petition within one year of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, which held that an identical residual clause in a statute was unconstitutionally vague. The court also noted that the Second Circuit had recently held in Nunez v. United States that a petition seeking to vacate a sentence imposed under the mandatory Guidelines on the same Johnson-based ground was untimely, even though it was filed within one year of Johnson.
Order
The court ordered Vargas to file a letter by April 28, 2020, explaining whether there was any reason his petition should not be withdrawn or summarily dismissed in light of Nunez. The court stated that the Government must respond by May 5, 2020, if necessary. This order did not itself withdraw or dismiss the petition. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.