Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01199/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01199-0/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

1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in the civil case. “Crim. Doc.#”

refers to filings in the criminal case. 

2

 On May 6, 2010, Movant filed a motion in his criminal case inquiring about the

status of a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Crim. Doc.# 24.) Because a

motion to vacate had not yet been filed in this case, the Court informed Movant that a motion

had not been received. (Crim. Doc.# 25.) On June 3, 2010, a motion to vacate pursuant to

§ 2255 was filed with the motion for clarification. (Crim. Doc.# 27, 28.) As discussed

below, because Movant seeks relief as to the execution of his federal sentences, he must file

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Pompeyo Sanchez-Cortez, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1199-PHX-MHM (JRI)

No. CR 05-1087-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Movant Pompeyo Sanchez-Cortez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Lewis, in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

Correct Sentence to Reflect Credit Time for Time Served Before Sentencing Date” (Motion).

(Doc.# 1.)1

 Movant has also filed a motion for clarification, which will be granted to the

extent set forth herein.2

 The Court will summarily dismiss the § 2255 Motion without

prejudice.

///

Case 2:10-cv-01199-MHM--JRI Document 5 Filed 07/06/10 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

3

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082004/m1517161.pdf.

- 2 -

I. Procedural History

On July 24, 2003, Movant and others were indicted in this District, case # CR03-

0787-PHX-MHM, and a bench warrant for Movant’s arrest was issued the next day. (CR03-

0787, Crim. Doc.# 1, 2.) On August 24, 2004, Movant was sentenced to 12 years in the

Arizona Department of Corrections by the Maricopa County Superior Court, case# CR2003-

009510.3

 (Id., Crim. Doc.# 122 at 1.) The federal warrant issued in CR03-0787 was

executed on October 5, 2004. (Id., Crim. Doc.# 108.) On October 19, 2005, the Western

District of Texas transferred a criminal case pending there to this District with Movant’s

consent, case# CR05-1087-PHX-MHM. (CR05-1087, Crim. Doc.# 1, 2.) On May 11, 2006,

Movant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in CR03-0787 and CR05-1087, and was

sentenced to 264 months in prison in each case to run concurrently, followed by five years

on supervised release in each case, also to run concurrently. (CR03-0787, Crim. Doc.# 118;

CR05-1087, Crim. Doc.# 19.) Movant’s federal sentences were to run concurrently with his

Arizona state sentence. (CR03-0787, Crim. Doc.# 122 at 1.) In its Judgment, this Court

expressly stated that “[t]he defendant SHALL NOT receive credit for any time served prior

to this date of Sentencing.” (CR03-0787, Crim. Doc.# 118; CR05-1087, Crim. Doc.# 19.)

II. Summary Dismissal

A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly appears

from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving

party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the

United States District Courts. When this standard is satisfied, neither a hearing nor a

response from the government is required. See Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526

(9th Cir. 1985); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). In this case,

the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is warranted.

A defendant may file a motion pursuant to § 2255 to claim “the right to be released

upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

Case 2:10-cv-01199-MHM--JRI Document 5 Filed 07/06/10 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 4

 Movant pleaded guilty in this District to illegal reentry after deportation on

November 26, 2007, and was sentenced to 30 months incarceration. (Doc.# 27.)

- 3 -

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. 

In this case, Movant challenges the execution of his sentence rather than asserts a right

to be released pursuant to §2255.4

 Challenges to the execution of a sentence must be brought

pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District where

the prisoner is confined. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam). Movant may seek habeas relief as to the execution of his federal sentences by

filing a single petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Movant’s

instant Motion, which seeks relief pursuant to § 2255, will be denied without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Movant’s motion for clarification is granted to the extent set forth herein.

(Crim. Doc.# 28 in CR05-1087-PHX-MHM; Doc.# 4 in CV10-1199-PHX-MHM).

(2) Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (Crim. Doc.# 27 in CR05-1087-PHX-MHM) is denied and the civil action

opened in connection with this Motion, doc.# 1 in CV10-1199-PHX-MHM is dismissed

without prejudice. (Doc.# 1.) 

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01199-MHM--JRI Document 5 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 3