Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Although the underlying criminal action has been transferred 1

to the docket of Judge Oliver W. Wanger, petitioner’s Section 2255

motion was assigned to this court because this court sentenced

petitioner. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORBERTO ARREDONDO, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-056 REC

(No. CR-F-97-CR-5167 OWW)

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR RESPONDENT

On January 17, 2006, petitioner Norberto Arredondo filed a

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief

because the court imposed sentencing enhancements in violation of

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).1

The court hereby dismisses petitioner’s motion. 

On July 2, 2001, petitioner filed a Section 2255 motion

Case 1:06-cv-00056-REC Document 2 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Petitioner argues that the court should hold the instant 2

motion in abeyance pending resolution by the Supreme Court of

Washington v. Recuenco, No. 05-83. The court denies this request.

The issue before the Supreme Court in Recuenco does not address the

applicability of Booker to cases on collateral review.

2

based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See

Arrendono v. United States, No. CV-F-01-5851 REC. By Order filed

on July 5, 2001, the court denied this Section 2255 motion. 

Therefore, the instant motion is a second or successive Section

2255 motion. Petitioner must first apply to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeal for leave to file such a motion. In the absence

of authorization from the Ninth Circuit, this court does not have

jurisdiction to hear it. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d

661, 664 (9 Cir. 1998). th

Petitioner, citing McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991),

argues that the instant motion should not be construed by this

court as a “second or successive” motion because his challenge to

his sentence under Booker is a new issue that did not exist and

could not have been raised at the time he filed his initial

Section 2255 motion. However, even if the court assumes

petitioner’s position is correct, petitioner would not be

entitled to relief. Booker is not retroactive to cases on

collateral review. United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9th

Cir. 2005).2

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Norberto Arredondo’s second motion to vacate,

set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is

Case 1:06-cv-00056-REC Document 2 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

dismissed.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00056-REC Document 2 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 3