1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:09-cr-455-LDG 12 || V. ORDER 13 ||] MATTHEW RIDGE, 14 Defendant. 15 16 The defendant, Matthew Ridge, filed a Notice of Filing of Second or Successive 17 || Petition in the Ninth Circuit and Filing of Protective Abridged Motion to Vacate under 28 18 || U.S.C. §2255 (ECF No. 89). That document asked the Court to hold his Protective 19 || Abridged Motion in Abeyance until the Ninth Circuit could consider whether to allow it to b 20 || filed as a second or successive petition. This Court granted that motion (ECF No. 91). The Ninth Circuit granted Ridge’s application to file a second or successive §2255 petitior 22 || and authorized this Court to proceed with Ridge’s abridged motion that he had filed in this 23 | court (ECF No. 90). 24 In sentencing Ridge under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, the Court 25 | determined that he was a career offender under §4B1.1. Ridge argues that his prior felon 26 || convictions no longer qualify as crimes of violence pursuant to the Supreme Court’s

1 | decision in Johnson v. United States,

(2015). That argument is foreclosed 2 || by Beckles v. United States,

(2017). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held 3 || that the vagueness of the residual clause in the definition of a “violent felony” in the Armec 4 || Career Criminal Act of 1984,

(e)(2)(B) (ACCA), violated the Constitution’s 5 || Due Process Class.

. Ridge argues that the reasoning of Johnsor 6 || applies to the residual clause in the definition of crime of violence in §4B1.2. 7 Ridge cannot bring that challenge because he was sentenced pursuant to advisory 8 || Sentencing Guidelines. In Beckles, which was decided after the Ninth Circuit granted 9 || Ridge’s petition to file the present motion as a second or successive motion, the Supreme 10 || Court held that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness 11 || challenge under the Due Process Clause and that §4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void 12 | for vagueness.”

. Accordingly, the Court will deny Ridge’s §2255 motion. 13 Certificate of Appealability 14 To appeal this order, Ridge must receive a certificate of appealability.

|| 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); 9th Cir. R. 22—1(a). To obtain that certificate, he 16 || “must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration 17 || that... includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter. 18 || agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 19 || presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” S/ack v. 20 |} McDaniel,

(2000) (quotation omitted). This standard is “lenient.” 21 || Hayward v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). In the present matter, 22 || the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles is dispositive and precludes this Court from 23 || finding that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) Ridge 24 || can challenge his sentence pursuant to Johnson. Therefore, for good cause shown, 25 THE COURT ORDERS that Defendant Matthew Ridge’s Abridged Motion to Vacat 26 || Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to

is DENIED.

1 THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that it will not grant a certificate of appealability. 2 3 DATED this >| day of January, 2020. . (| ‘ f s(iewcyl [i Lau □ 9 Lloyd D. Géorge /

6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26