United States v. Perez, 683 F. App'x 691 (10th Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
United States v. Perez, 683 F. App'x 691 (10th Cir. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 695 holding that internal reporting regarding a state agency’s failure to enforce public policy was conduct covered by the Whistleblower Act1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Andrews v. Oklahoma Workers Comp. Comm'n, No. 5:21-cv-00609 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 7, 2021).
    (holding that internal reporting regarding a state agency’s failure to enforce public policy was conduct covered by the Whistleblower Act)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Carlos PEREZ
No. 16-2271.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 30, 2017.
Unpublished opinion
683 F. App'x 691
Matthew M. Beck, Renee Lyn Camacho, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Nia Rucker, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant-Appellant
Kelly, Matheson, Murphy.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

Defendant-Appellant Carlos Perez seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Perez contends that the calculation of his sentencing guideline range relied on language found unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). The district court found that Mr. Perez’s status as a career offender resulted from the application of an enumerated offense (burglary of a dwelling) in § 4B 1.2(a), not the language found wanting in Johnson. But even had that language been applied, the Supreme Court recently held that the void-for-vagueness holding in Johnson does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines. Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 900-02, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Perez’s request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.