Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01472/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY D. SLUDER,

Defendant-Petitioner,

Case No. 13-cv-1472-W

 05-cr-1570-W

ORDER:

(1) DENYING DEFENDANTPETITIONER’S MOTION TO

VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. §

2255 [DOC. 581]; AND

(2) DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

[DOC. 590]

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Ricky D. Sluder’s motion for habeas

corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. Respondent

United States of America (“Government”) opposes. The Court has reviewed the

moving papers and the relevant records on the docket. For the following reasons, the

Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion as untimely.

//

- 1 - 13cv1472 / 05cr1570

Case 3:13-cv-01472-W Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 4
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

I. BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2005, a grand jury returned a five-count indictment charging

Petitioner with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371, and four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The charges

arose from Petitioner’s participation in a nationwide Ponzi scheme under the names of

Qwest International, Wealth Builders Club, and Learn Waterhouse, Inc. See United

States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 993 (9th Cir. 2010). On June 17, 2009, a jury found

Petitioner guilty of all counts. Thereafter, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 188

months in custody followed by three years supervised release and a mandatory

restitution in the amount of $44,872,152.38.

On January 28, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence. The United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s

petition for writ of certiorari on October 4, 2010.

Petitioner now moves for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on three

grounds: (1) the Court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by judicially determining

the extent of the loss; (2) the Government made false representations to the grand jury

concerning the investor funds converted to the defendants’ personal use; and (3) that

18 U.S.C. § 371 could not apply to him because the Government did not name any

governmental agency or department thatwas defrauded. The Government opposes the

motion.

II. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)

established a one-year statute of limitations for motions brought under 28 U.S.C. §

2255. The one-year limitation period runs from the latest of: (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

- 2 - 13cv1472 / 05cr1570

Case 3:13-cv-01472-W Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 Page 2 of 4
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

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(f).

Petitioner does not present any evidence or argument suggesting there was any

action taken by the Government that created an impediment to his filing the motion. 

Moreover, he also fails to show that he could not have discovered the factual basis for

his claims despite due diligence. However, Petitioner’s only argument to avoid the oneyear statute of limitations comes under § 2255(f)(3), where he argues that because

Southern Union, Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012), “held that the Sixth

Amendment gives defendant[s] the right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable

doubt, facts that would increase the maximum criminal fine,” he is not time barred. 

(Pet’r’s Mot. 3.)

In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Supreme Court held that

the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to determine any fact, other than a prior

conviction, that increases a criminal defendant’s potential maximum sentence. 

Southern Union held that this principle “applies to sentences of criminal fines.” 

Southern Union, 132 S. Ct. at 1248-49. However, it did not recognize a new right as

§ 2255(f) requires. See Anderson v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 7638, 2013 WL

652425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2013). Rather, Southern Union merely extended a

principle already articulated in Apprendi, which predates Petitioner’s conviction. See

id.

Furthermore, evenif Southern Union applied to these circumstances, “restitution

. . . is not a form of punishment dependent upon factfinding by the jury.” Anderson,

2013 WL 652425, at *2. And Apprendi does not apply to determinations of restitution

where no statutory maximum exists. Southern Union, 132 S. Ct. at 2353 (“Nor, a

fortiori, could there be an Apprendi violation where no maximum is prescribed.”). 

- 3 - 13cv1472 / 05cr1570

Case 3:13-cv-01472-W Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Thus, insofar as challenging the restitution ordered, Southern Union is not even

applicable. It also does not apply to Petitioner’s 188 months imprisonment because this

sentence is below the Court’s calculated guideline range of 324 to 405 months

imprisonment.

In sum, the statute of limitations did not begin to run when the Supreme Court

issued Southern Union, but rather on the date when the judgment of conviction

became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Finality occurs when the Supreme Court

“affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of

certiorari, or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires.” United States v.

Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Clay v. United States,

537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003)). Consequently, the October 4, 2010 date when the Supreme

Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari is the date when judgment became

final. See id. Therefore, Petitioner filed his motion over two years after the statute of

limitations had expired, and his motion is thus untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for habeas

corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 34.) Because reasonable jurists would not

find the Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES

Petitioner a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). Furthermore, given that Petitioner cannot pursue his § 2255 motion any

further, the Court DENIES AS MOOT his motion for discovery. (Doc. 590.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: January 29, 2014

HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN

United States District Court

Southern District of California

 

- 4 - 13cv1472 / 05cr1570

Case 3:13-cv-01472-W Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 Page 4 of 4