Sotelo v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his 262-month sentence imposed in 1995 on charges of mailing extortionate communications and mailing threatening communications under 18 USC sections 876(b) and (c), where said sentence was based in part on finding that defendant was career offender under section 4B1.1 of USSG. Said petition was untimely, where defendant neither directly appealed his sentence nor filed instant habeas petition within applicable one-year limitations period. Moreover, while defendant argued that petition was timely, because it was filed within year of Supreme Ct. decision in Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551, which invalidated residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act, defendant was not sentenced under similar residual clause under section 4B1.2 of USSG, but rather was sentenced under elements clause found in section 4B1.2(a)(1). As such, Ct.’s decision in Johnson did not restart one-year limitations period because right recognized in Johnson was not right that defendant asserts, and defendant could not otherwise look to Johnson to provide back-door challenge on any sentence under section 4B1.1 or Armed Career Criminal Act.