Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Steve Loren Scott, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court briefJan 10, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Appendix
Ninth Circuit's Order Denying Request for Certificate of
Appealability (November 7, 2017) .......................................... .. .............................. la
District Court's Order Declining Issuance of Certificate of
Appealability (August 22, 2017) ............................................................................ 4a
District Court's Order Denying Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ............................................................................ 5a
16
(1 of 2)
Selected docket entries for case 17-56174
Generated: 11/07/2017 14:58:08
Filed
Document Description
11/07/2017 ~ Main Document
Page
Docket Text
2
Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN and SANDRA S.
[KUTA) The request for a certificate of appealability
(Docket Entry No. [:!:.]) is denied because appellant has not
made a "substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).Any
pending motions are denied as moot.DENIED. [10646451]
(JBS)
Appendix la
(2 of 2)
Case: 17-56174, 11/07/2017, ID: 10646451, DktEntry: 5, Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOV 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.
STEVE LOREN SCOTT, AKA Scottie,
AKA SealL,
No.
17-56174
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
D.C. Nos.
2:16-cv-09541-TJH
2:02-cr-00938-R-12
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Defendant-Appellant.
Before:
SILVERMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied
because appellant has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
DENIED.
Appendix 2a
Case 2:16-cv-09541-TJH Document 23 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:481
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wnitt~ ~tatts iHstrict <iCourt
<ittntral f.Bistrict of <italifornia
Wtsttrn ilibision
8
9
10
11
12
STEVE LOREN SCOTT,
13
14
15
16
Petitioner,
CV 16-09541 TJH
CR02-0938-R
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
17
18
19
20
The Court has considered the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' s remand for the
limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability.
21
This Court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made
22
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
23
Such a showing requires the petitioner to "demonstrate that the issues are debatable
24
among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner];
25
or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."
26
Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (alterations in original,
27
emphasis omitted). Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
28
constitutional right under any of the above bases.
Order - Page 1 of 2
Appendix 3a
Case 2:16-cv-09541-TJH
Document 23 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:482
Accordingly,
2
3
4
3It jg eri)crci) that the District Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.
5
6
7
3It jg ffurtbcr eri)crci) that the Clerk of Court shall convey a copy of this
order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
8
9
Date: August 22, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order - Page 2 of 2
Appendix 4a
Case 2:16-cv-09541-TJH
Document 19 Filed 07/28/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:475
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wnittb' ~tatts iHstrict QCourt
QCtntral ilistritt of QCalifornia
Wtsttrn ilibision
8
9
10
11
12
STEVE LOREN SCOTT,
13
14
15
16
Petitioner,
CV 16-09541 TJH
CR 02-00938 R
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
JS-6
17
18
19
The Court has considered Petitioner Steve Loren Scott's motion to vacate, set
20
aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as Respondent's motion
21
to dismiss, together with the moving and opposing papers.
22
Petitioner challenged his sentence, contending that Johnson v. United States, 135
23
S. Ct. 2551 (2015), applied to the identically-worded "residual clause" in the career
24
offender definition of a "crime of violence" in U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.2(a)(2). On March 6,
25
2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886
26
(2017), holding that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a due process
27
vagueness challenge. 137 S. Ct. at 895. The Court held that unlike the Armed Career
28
Criminal Act, which was subject to the Court's decision in Johnson, the advisory
Order - Page 1 of 2
Appendix 5a
Case 2:16-cv-09541-TJH
Document 19 Filed 07/28/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:476
1
Guidelines "merely guide the exercise of a court's discretion in choosing an appropriate
2
sentence within the statutory range." Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 892. Indeed, on this basis,
3
the Supreme Court held that § 4Bl.2(a)(2) specifically was not void for vagueness.
4
Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 895. As a result, Petitioner's motion is foreclosed by Beckles.
5
6
Accordingly,
7
8
9
3It is- erbtrtb that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 be, and hereby is, iJtnitb.
10
11
12
3It is- :furthtr erbtrtb that Respondent's motion to dismiss be, and hereby is,
l.Btnitb as moot.
13
14
Date: July 28, 2017
15
16
17
18
tr v. 3J. Jf)atttr, 3J .
~tnior 'tltlnittb ~tatts- l.Bis-trict 3Jubge
CC:BOP
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order - Page 2 of 2
Appendix 6a
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.