Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00428/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00428-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Francisco Gomez-Cazares, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-10-0666-PHX-JAT

CV-13-0428-PHX-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

On February 28, 2013, Francisco Gomez-Cazares filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside

or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his conviction following a

guilty plea for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute 50 grams or more of

Methamphetamine, and the imposition of a 210-month prison term, followed by five years

on supervised release. He alleges that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising

him to reject the second plea offer, and by failing to file an appeal when he had promised to

do so. The government contends that the motion is untimely filed, and that his claims were

voluntarily waived by the express terms of the plea agreement. For the reasons stated below,

the Court recommends that the motion be denied.

Gomez-Cazares was required to file his motion within one year of the date on which

his judgment became final. Because he did not appeal, his conviction became final after his

time to seek review by direct appeal expired. United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223

(9th Cir. 2001). His conviction became final on February 8, 2012, fourteen days after the

Case 2:13-cv-00428-JAT Document 9 Filed 01/29/14 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

27

28 - 2 -

entry of judgment on January 25, 2012, when the deadline expired for filing a notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. He was therefore

required to file his motion on or before February 8, 2013. Gomez-Cazares filed his § 2255

petition on February 28, twenty days after the expiration of the one-year limitations period,

and it is therefore untimely.

In his reply, Gomez-Cazares appears to argue that his untimely filing should be

excused because of the ineffective assistance of counsel, citing Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S.

631 (2010). Holland does not aid his situation. In that case, counsel failed to timely file

Holland’s federal petition despite Holland’s numerous admonitions of the importance of

timely filing; counsel did not do the necessary research to determine the filing deadline

despite Holland’s letters to counsel identifying the applicable legal rules; counsel failed to

provide Holland with requested information so that Holland could monitor his case; and

counsel failed to communicate with Holland over a period of several years. Holland, 560

U.S. at 652. The unprofessional conduct cited by the Court in Holland related entirely to the

filing of his federal petition.

In this case, however, Gomez-Cazares alleges that counsel misadvised him about

rejecting an earlier plea offer, and failed to file an appeal, after promising to do so. Neither

of these claims, even if taken as true, were actions that prevented Gomez-Cazares from

timely filing his federal petition. Therefore, they cannot constitute the extraordinary

circumstances necessary for equitable relief. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418

(2005).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Francisco Gomez-Cazares’ Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied (Doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable.

Case 2:13-cv-00428-JAT Document 9 Filed 01/29/14 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

27

28 - 3 -

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 29th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00428-JAT Document 9 Filed 01/29/14 Page 3 of 3