Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01381-0/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 In his objections, movant requests oral argument. That request is denied. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:02-cr-00468-MCE-CMK

 2:06-cv-01381-MCE-CMK

Respondent, 

v. ORDER

N. ALLEN SAWYER,

Movant.

 /

Movant, a federal prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this motion to correct

or set aside a criminal judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On June 12, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the findings

and recommendations have been filed by movant. Respondent filed a reply to those objections,

1

and movant filed a response to respondent’s reply. 

Case 2:06-cv-01381-MCE -CMK Document 2 Filed 08/31/07 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

2

As to movant’s objections, movant argues: (1) the magistrate judge erred in

concluding that the oral pronouncement at trial concerning waiver was “not unambiguous” and

that respondent concedes the point; and (2) the magistrate judge erred in interpreting Bousley v.

United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998), and Schlup v .Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), to conclude that

movant has not demonstrated cause and prejudice by a showing of actual/factual innocence. The

court concludes that neither objection is valid. 

First, while respondent concedes that the instant § 2255 motion should not be

dismissed based on waiver, the court does not agree. For the waiver to be inapplicable, the court

would have to conclude that the oral pronouncement controls. notwithstanding the parties’

arguments that the oral pronouncement was unambiguous, the court disagrees. The court agrees

with the magistrate judge that the oral pronouncement cannot control in this case under Ninth

Circuit precedent. Respondent’s concession on this point does not change the result. 

Second, the court does not agree with movant that the magistrate judge

misinterpreted either Bousley or Schlup. To the contrary, the magistrate judge’s analysis was

correct and is hereby adopted. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01381-MCE -CMK Document 2 Filed 08/31/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 12, 2007, are adopted in

full;

2. Movant’s § 2255 motion is dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close companion civil Case

No. 2:06-cv-01381-MCE-CMK.

Dated: August 30, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01381-MCE -CMK Document 2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3