Nuno v. United States

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:15-cr-0211-RFB 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 JOSE ALFREDO NUNO, 11 Defendant. 12

13 Before the Court IS Defendant’s Motion to Vacate. ECF No. 54. In his motion, Defendant 14 argues that his conviction should be vacated because his crime of conviction, aiding and abetting 15 carjacking, does not qualify as a crime of violence in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 16 2319 (2019). The Court rejects Defendant’s argument and denies the motion on this ground. The 17 Court finds that the Defendant’s argument is and has been foreclosed by controlling Ninth Circuit 18 precedent in Young v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115 (9th Cir. 2022). 19 Defendant also argues in his motion that his conviction with respect being a felon in 20 possession of firearm should also be vacated pursuant to Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 21 (2019). The Court rejects Defendant’s argument on this point as well and also denies the motion 22 on this ground. The Court finds that the Defendant’s argument is and has been foreclosed by Greer 23 v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021). The Court agrees with the government’s arguments as to 24 the controlling application of Greer to this case, and it incorporates that reasoning by reference. 25 For the reasons stated, 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate [ECF No. 54] is 27 DENIED. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Motion for Leave [ECF No. 60] 1s GRANTED. DATED: May 23, 2023.

6 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-