Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02953/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02953-0/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

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case Nos. CR 03-20035 JF, CV 05-2953 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff

v.

IGNACIO MORENO-MORFIN,

 Defendant

Case Numbers CR 03-20035 JF

 CV 05-2953 JF

ORDER DENYING (1) MOTION TO 1

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR MODIFY

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255

Defendant Ignacio Moreno-Morfin (“Defendant”) moves to vacate, set aside, or correct

his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government opposes the motion. Defendant’s

motion was taken under submission without oral argument. The Court has read the moving and

responding papers, and has considered the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the

motion will be denied.

Case 5:05-cv-02953-JF Document 4 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28 The equal protection claim properly is brought under the Fifth Amendment. 2

2

Case Nos. CR 03-20035 JF, CV 05-2953 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX1)

I. BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2003, Defendant was indicted on one count of illegal reentry by a deported

alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Defendant initially pled not guilty to the charge, but on

May 6, 2003, he changed his plea to guilty. On September 23, 2003, Defendant was sentenced to

fifty-seven months in prison, a subsequent two-year term of supervised release, and a special

assessment of $100. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR A § 2255 MOTION

A prisoner in federal custody may move the sentencing court to vacate, set aside or

correct his sentence “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose

such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is

otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Under § 2255, “a district court must grant a hearing to determine the validity of a petition

brought under that section ‘[u]nless the motions and the files and records of the case conclusively

show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.’” United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1456

(9th Cir. 1994) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). In deciding whether the movant is entitled to an

evidentiary hearing, the district court should determine if, assuming the truth of the movant’s

claims, he could prevail. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant claims that he was denied the following constitutional rights: (1) his Fifth

Amendment right to due process of law because he was not informed that he could notify the

Mexican consulate pursuant to the Vienna Convention Treaty, (2) his Sixth Amendment right to

effective assistance of counsel, and (3) his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of

the laws because of the disparate sentences imposed on alien and American citizen inmates. In 2

his reply brief, Defendant appears to assert a fourth claim that his sentence should be reevaluated in light of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125

Case 5:05-cv-02953-JF Document 4 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

3

Case Nos. CR 03-20035 JF, CV 05-2953 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX1)

S. Ct. 738 (2005).

The Government argues that Defendant’s motion is time-barred. Section 2255 of the

United States Code prescribes a one-year statute of limitations. The one-year period runs from

the latest of the following four dates: (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes

final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was

prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right

asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized

by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the

date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1)-(4).

Defendant filed his § 2255 motion more than twenty-one months after the judgment

became final. Defendant does not claim that the Government created an impediment to his

ability to file the motion. It is apparent from the face of the motion that Defendant was aware of

the facts supporting his claims for almost two years prior to the filing of the motion.

The only subsection that potentially could save Defendant’s claims from the statute of

limitations bar is subsection (3). However, that subsection is applicable only to Defendant’s

Booker claim, which is not even raised in his motion, but rather is asserted for the first time in his

reply brief. Accordingly, Defendant’s Booker claim is not properly before the Court. 

Even if it were to consider Defendant’s Booker claim, however, the Court would

conclude that the claim does not fall within subsection (3) of § 2255. The Ninth Circuit has held

expressly that Booker is “not retroactive, and does not apply to cases on collateral review where

the conviction was final as of the date of Booker’s publication.” U.S. v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119,

1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant’s conviction became final before the Supreme Court’s holding

in Booker. 

Based on the above analysis, the Court concludes that Defendant’s motion is time-barred.

Case 5:05-cv-02953-JF Document 4 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

4

Case Nos. CR 03-20035 JF, CV 05-2953 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX1)

III. ORDER

The motion is DENIED.

DATED: February 13, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02953-JF Document 4 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

5

Case Nos. CR 03-20035 JF, CV 05-2953 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Jane Shoemaker 

US Attorney's Office 

NDCA, San Jose Branch 

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900 

San Jose, CA 95113 

408-535-5061 

Eumi L. Choi 

Chief, Criminal Division 

150 Alameda Blvd. 

Suite 900 

San Jose, CA 95113 

408-535-5043 

Fax: 408-535-5066 

Kevin V. Ryan 

United States Attorney 

150 Almaden Blvd. 

Suite 900 

San Jose, CA 95113-2009 

408-535-5082 

Fax: 408-535-5081 

Ignacio Moreno Morfin

Cibola County Corr. Ctr.

P.O. Box 3540-2000

Cibola Loop

Milan, NM 87021

Case 5:05-cv-02953-JF Document 4 Filed 02/13/07 Page 5 of 5