Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00070-0/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

LEO V. HACKETT, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-070 OWW

(No. CR-F-99-5265 OWW)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255, DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ENTER

JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT 

On January 18, 2005, Petitioner Leo V. Hackett filed a

motion. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief:

Because of recent Supreme Court rulings, my

conviction is invalid and illegal. I was

enhanced from the base offense level by the

court using criteria that was not submitted

to a jury, nor proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. The court did not prove to a jury all

facts legally essential to the punishment

imposed.

Petitioner was convicted by jury trial. Petitioner was

sentenced on April 16, 2001 to 164 months incarceration. 

Case 1:05-cv-00070-OWW Document 3 Filed 07/09/08 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

2

Petitioner filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit and his

conviction and sentence were affirmed in July 2002. 

Petitioner’s motion was not filed within the one-year

limitation period set forth in Section 2255. As a general

practice, Petitioner would be required to file an amended Section

2255 motion setting forth the facts upon which he relies in

contending that his motion is timely filed or that he is entitled

to equitable tolling. Because, however, neither Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), nor United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 200 (2005) are retroactive on collateral review, United

States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9 Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 th

U.S. 1155 (2006); Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025 (9 Cir.2005), th

Petitioner is not entitled to relief even if his Section 2255

motion is determined to have been timely filed.

Petitioner also moves for judgment in his favor because the

United States has not filed a response to his motion. 

Petitioner’s motion is without merit. Pursuant to Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District

Court, the United States is not authorized to file a response to

the Section 2255 motion until ordered to do so by the District

Court. 

For the reasons stated:

1. Petitioner Leo V. Hackett’s motion to vacate, set aside

or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s motion for judgment in his favor is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT FOR

Case 1:05-cv-00070-OWW Document 3 Filed 07/09/08 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

3

RESPONDENT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00070-OWW Document 3 Filed 07/09/08 Page 3 of 3