Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02369/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02369-1/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

vs.

Jonathan Hunter, 

Defendant-Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-02369-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Movant Jonathan Hunter is serving a 504-month sentence in connection with two

armed bank robberies in 2002. On August 17, 2009, we denied his motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct the sentence (doc. 29). The court now has before it his motion for

reconsideration (doc. 37). The United States filed a notice that it will not respond unless

ordered to do so (doc. 39).

Movant requests reconsideration and relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), Fed.

R. Civ. P. He contends once again that count five of his indictment failed to charge a federal

crime or offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). We rejected this contention in passing, and

he asks for clarification. The indictment included two counts of armed bank robbery, counts

two and four, and corresponding counts of using a firearm in the commission of a crime of

violence, counts three and five. Count five referenced the armed bank robbery, “as alleged

in Count 5 of this indictment.” Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence at 34.

Case 2:08-cv-02369-FJM Document 40 Filed 02/11/10 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

- 2 -

Movant argues that count five did not fairly inform him of the charges against him because

it erroneously referenced itself instead of count four. He also argues that the indictment was

amended impermissibly when it was clarified at trial that count five corresponded to the

armed bank robbery charge in count four. Finally, he contends that he was deprived of

effective assistance of counsel because these arguments were not raised previously.

We rejected movant’s claims concerning count five because he defaulted on them

when he did not raise them on direct appeal. In order to avoid procedural default, he needed

to show both cause for failing to raise the claims and actual prejudice from the alleged

violations. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 1594 (1982). He

could not show actual prejudice because both claims lacked merit. An indictment must give

defendants “fair notice of the charges that they will face and the theories that the government

will present at trial.” United States v. Hartz, 458 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006). Movant’s

first claim lacked merit because the indictment notified him that he was charged with using

a firearm in connection with the armed bank robberies detailed in counts two and four. An

indictment also may not be constructively amended by altering its charging terms because

it would allow a defendant to be convicted of a charge not brought by the grand jury. See

id. at 1020-21. Movant’s second claim lacked merit because matching count five up with

count four at trial did not alter the charges against him in any way. Thus, the indictment was

not amended.

We rejected movant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he could not

show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s representation. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (requiring prejudice). Movant was not

prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise the above frivolous claims. Therefore, we deny his

motion for reconsideration.

We must issue or deny a certificate of appealability. Rule 11(a), Rules Governing

§ 2255 Proceedings. Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, the motion’s denial is justified by a plain procedural bar, and jurists of

Case 2:08-cv-02369-FJM Document 40 Filed 02/11/10 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

- 3 -

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Thus, we deny a certificate of

appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING movant’s motion for reconsideration

(doc. 37).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability.

DATED this 11th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02369-FJM Document 40 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 3