NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS VALENZUELA, AKA Jose No. 18-35194 Luis Valenzuela-Gomez, D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00249-EJL Petitioner-Appellant, 1:03-cr-00032-EJL-2

v.

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Jose Luis Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see United States v.

Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Valenzuela contends that the district court erred by denying as untimely his

section 2255 motion. He argues that the motion was timely because it was filed

within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135

S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and the logic of Johnson extends to the residual clause of the

mandatory career-offender guideline under which he was sentenced. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f)(3); U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2. This argument is foreclosed because

“Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing

Guidelines on collateral review.” United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020,

1028 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2762 (2019). Accordingly, the

district court properly concluded that section 2255(f)(3) does not apply and that

Valenzuela’s motion is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35194