Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00947-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO WILLIE RIOJAS, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-947 REC

(No. CR-F-94-5212 MDC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255 AND DIRECTING

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

On July 25, 2005, petitioner Guillermo Willie Riojas filed a

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255.

Petitioner was convicted by jury trial of interference with

interstate commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 5), two counts of use of a firearm during

a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts 6

and 12), and motor vehicle theft - carjacking in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2119 (Count 11). Petitioner was sentenced to 96 months

as to Counts 5 and 11 to be served concurrently, 10 years

Case 1:05-cv-00947-REC Document 3 Filed 08/09/05 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

2

consecutive as to Count 6, and 20 years consecutive as to Count

12. Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on May

27, 1997. See United States v. Delacorte, et al., 1997 WL 226467

(9 Cir. 1997). th

In his Section 2255 motion, petitioner raises two grounds

for relief. 

In Ground One he contends that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel 

because counsel failed to investigate the

facts of the case and research the law in

correlation thereto, petitioner was harmed

and prejudiced from counsel’s

action/inactions, and but for counsel’s

actions/inactions petitioner would not have

been found guilty in violation of 18 USC §

1951(a) count 5, interference of State

Commerce [sic]

However, in the body of his motion, however, petitioner does not

refer to ineffective assistance of counsel or point to any

specific investigation that counsel should have conducted or

evidence that counsel should have discovered that would

substantiate petitioner’s claim. Rather, petitioner asserts that

“insufficient evidence existed to support a finding that his

robbery affected interstate commerce and had no effect on

interstate commerce beyond an absolute de minimus effect.” 

With regard to Ground One, petitioner’s claim is subject to

the one-year limitation period applicable to Section 2255 motions

and appears to be time-barred. When a claim or claims appear to

be time-barred, the court usually requires a petitioner to file

Case 1:05-cv-00947-REC Document 3 Filed 08/09/05 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

3

an amended petition setting forth the facts upon which he intends

to rely in contending that the claim(s) are not time-barred

and/or that the petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling

within the meaning of Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central

Dist. of Cal., 128 F.3d 1283 (9 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 th

U.S. 1099 and 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled on other grounds,

163 F.3d 503 (9 Cir. 1998). th

However, the court will not follow that procedure here.

Notwithstanding issues of timeliness, petitioner cannot raise

this claim in this Section 2255 motion. In affirming

petitioner’s conviction of Count 5, the Ninth Circuit rejected

petitioner’s contention on appeal that the evidence was not

sufficient to support that conviction, holding in pertinent part:

The robbery of Andre’s Restaurant had a

sufficient nexus with interstate commerce to

support the conviction of both defendants

under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Lucille Estrada,

a clerk at Andre’s, testified that the

perpetrators took money from the cash

register. A food supplier for Andre’s

Restaurant, Joseph Galland, testified that he

sold to Andre’s various food items that came

from other states. The defendants depleted

the resources of a business engaged in

interstate commerce.

In Ground Two petitioner contends that his sentence was

enhanced the trial judge beyond the statutory maximum prescribed

by law in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296

(2004).

Petitioner is not entitled to relief with regard to Ground

Two. Neither the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely nor the

Case 1:05-cv-00947-REC Document 3 Filed 08/09/05 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

4

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, ___ U.S.

___, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005) are applied retroactively on collateral

review. See Schardt v. Payne, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1593468 (9th

Cir. 2005); Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864 (11 Cir. th

2005); Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855 (6 Cir. 2005); th

McReynolds v. United States, 397 F.3d 479 (7 Cir. 2005); Guzman th

v. United States, 404 F.3d 139 (2 Cir. 2005). nd

Petitioner also contends in Ground Two that his convictions

and the consecutive sentences imposed for the two counts of

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violate the Double Jeopardy

Clause. Again, petitioner’s claim appears to be time-barred. 

However, even if it were not time-barred, the claim has no merit. 

Petitioner was convicted of the use or carrying of a firearm

during two separate crimes, the robbery of the restaurant and the

carjacking.

Finally, petitioner contends that the district court imposed

the statutorily required sentences for the violations of Section

924(c) and then also enhanced his sentence under the Sentencing

Guidelines because of his use or carrying of a firearm. 

Again, this claim appears to be time-barred. However, even

if not time-barred, because petitioner did not raise this claim

on direct appeal, he has waived his right to do so by way of

Section 2255. See United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483 (9th

Cir. 1994).

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct

Case 1:05-cv-00947-REC Document 3 Filed 08/09/05 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

5

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00947-REC Document 3 Filed 08/09/05 Page 5 of 5