US v. Hill, No. 17-35719 (2-7-19)(Ikuta w/Fernandez & Sessions).

This concerns a valiant effort to get Johnson relief for a non-ACCA plea and sentence prior to Johnson.  The argument is that the petitioner, a prohibited possessor of a firearm, accepted a plea because of the threat of an ACCA enhancement.  Johnson established that he would not have been eligible for an enhancement.  The petitioner argues now that he accepted the plea, and was sentenced, based upon misinformation on ACCA eligibility.  Essentially, this was a due process argument.  The 9^th affirmed the district court’s denial of this argument.  The 9^th held that ACCA eligibility was not before the sentencing court; ACCA was not a basis for the sentence; and the actual sentence was a guidelines one. Thus, there is no perch from which to argue misinformation and hence due process.

Steve Sady and Elizabeth Daily, AFPDs, Oregon FPD, tried their best.

The opinion is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/07/17-35719.pdf