Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01480/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01480-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 05CR836-MMA

Related Civil Case No. 13cv1480-MMA

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE,

OR OTHERWISE CORRECT

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255 

[Doc. No. 28]

vs.

DENNY WILLIAM EDLIN,

Defendant.

On June 19, 2006, pursuant to the terms of a written plea agreement

containing a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, Defendant

Denny William Edlin pleaded guilty to Counts 9-15 of a nineteen count Indictment

for receiving child pornography in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code,

section 2252(a)(2). See Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 13. The Court sentenced

Defendant on November 6, 2006, to a total term of 137 months imprisonment, to run

consecutive to a state court sentence. See Judgment, Doc. No. 24. The Court also

sentenced Defendant to a term of supervised release for 3 years on Count 9, and 2

years on Counts 10-15 as to each count, to run consecutive for a total of 15 years. 

Id. Defendant now moves the Court to vacate, set aside, or otherwise correct his

sentence pursuant to Title 28, section 2255, arguing that the Court erred by imposing

consecutive terms of supervised release. Defendant requests re-sentencing and

- 1 - 05CR836/13CV1480

Case 3:13-cv-01480-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 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

27

28

further moves for a reduced sentence based on his post-conviction rehabilitation. 

See Motion, Doc. No. 28. The government filed a response to Defendant’s motion. 

See Response, Doc. No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the

motion.

DISCUSSION

1. 2255 Statute of Limitations

Defendant seeks to correct and reduce his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255, which provides: 

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of

Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

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, may move the court

which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, a one-year period of limitations applies to 2255

motions. Id. § 2255(f). As applicable here, the one-year limitations period runs

from the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. Id. The

government correctly asserts, and Defendant does not dispute, that the instant 2255

motion was filed long after his conviction became final and the one-year statute of

limitations expired. Nor does Defendant contend that he is entitled to equitable

tolling. His motion is therefore time-barred.1

 

2. Plea Agreement Waiver

Even if Defendant’s motion was timely, he waived the right to collaterally

attack his conviction and sentence. The Ninth Circuit approves of such waivers on

public policy grounds, reasoning that finality is “perhaps the most important benefit

1

 The Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the allegations are “palpably incredible” or “patently frivolous,” or if the issues can be conclusively decided on the basis of the evidence in the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977); see also United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a “district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on a Section 2255 claim where the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief”). Here, because Defendant’s motion is untimely, he is “not entitled to relief” and an evidentiary hearing is neither warranted nor required. 

- 2 - 05CR836/13CV1480

Case 3:13-cv-01480-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 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

27

28

of plea bargaining.” United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir.

1990). The pertinent portion of the plea agreement provides: 

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in this plea agreement, defendant waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the court imposes a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range (or statutory mandatory minimum term, if

applicable) recommended by the Government pursuant to this plea

agreement at the time of sentencing. If the custodial sentence is greater than the high end of that range, defendant may appeal, but the Government will be free to support on appeal the sentence actually imposed. If

defendant believes the Government’s recommendation is not in accord

with this plea agreement, defendant will object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the objection will be deemed waived.

See Plea Agreement, 10. Defendant’s custodial sentence of 137 months complies

with these conditions, and he does not challenge the knowing and voluntary nature

of the plea agreement or the voluntariness of his waiver.2

 

3. Procedural Default

Defendant did not challenge his sentence on direct appeal. Generally, on

collateral review, an individual may not assert claims of constitutional error that

were not previously raised before the district court or on direct review. United

States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1997). To obtain review of issues

at this juncture that could have been raised on direct appeal, Defendant must show

cause for his procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the error. United

States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982); United State v. Dunham, 767 F.2d

1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Defendant has made no such showing nor could he establish that he suffered

actual prejudice as a result of the alleged error. The plea agreement stated that the

Guidelines range for supervised release was a maximum of 3 years. See Plea

Agreement, 4. As accurately reflected by the corrected Pre-Sentence Report,

submitted to the parties and the Court prior to sentencing, the applicable statute at

2

 The Court calculated a Total Offense Level of 25, and a Criminal History Category of VI, resulting in a Guideline range of 110-137 months. 

- 3 - 05CR836/13CV1480

Case 3:13-cv-01480-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 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

27

28

the time of Defendant’s offense provided for a lifetime term of supervised release as

the statutory maximum for crimes involving possession of child pornography.3

 See

United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. Cal. 2008), citing18 U.S.C. §

3583(k) (2003). Furthermore, the Guidelines contained a policy statement

recommending the statutory maximum term of supervised release for sex offense

convictions. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c) (Nov. 2002). And in fact, United States Probation

recommended a 15 year term of supervised release as to each count, to run

concurrently. Thus, although the imposition of consecutive terms of supervised

release violated 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), the Court was authorized by statute to impose a

term for each count of life. The total 15 year term imposed in this case was

recommended by Probation, amply supported by the record, and was less than the

maximum term authorized by statute and recommended by the policy guidelines. 

Despite the Court’s error in structuring his sentence, Defendant did not suffer any

prejudice as a result. 

4. Amendment of the Judgment

The government concedes and the Court agrees that it was error to sentence

Defendant to consecutive terms of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3624(e), which provides, in short, that multiple terms of supervised release must run

concurrently. The government suggests that the Court should “amend the judgment”

3

 The corrected PSR stated: 

Supervised Release

(As to each count)

Statutory Provisions: A term of supervised release of any term of years or life is authorized. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k).

Guideline Provisions: If a sentence of imprisonment of one year or less is imposed, a term of supervised release of at least three years and up to life is optional. USSG §§ 5D1.1(b), 5Dl.2(a)(J) and 5D1.2(b)(2).

If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed which exceeds one year, the court is required to impose a term of supervised release of at least three years and up to life. USSG §§ 5D1.1(a), 5D1.2(a)(1) and 5DJ.2(b)(2).

- 4 - 05CR836/13CV1480

Case 3:13-cv-01480-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 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

27

28

to correct this error. See Response, 4. However, the government offers no legal

basis for amending the judgment in this case, and there is none. 

This Court may only amend or correct a judgment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c) or Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35 or 36, none of which are

applicable in this case. Section 3582(c) does not apply because there is no motion

from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, nor has Defendant’s sentencing range

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Rule 35(a) provides that “[w]ithin 14

days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from

arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Even if the Court were to construe

Defendant’s motion as one brought pursuant to Rule 35, the motion was filed

beyond the fourteen-day period set out in Rule 35(a) and there is no allegation of

arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. Rule 35(b) provides for a reduction of

sentence upon motion of the government. Here, there is no motion for reduction of

Defendant’s sentence for substantial assistance. Finally, Rule 36 provides that

“[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct

a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in

the record arising from oversight or omission.” There is no such error here. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to vacate,

reduce, or otherwise correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court

DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability and DENIES leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal because Defendant has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 5 - 05CR836/13CV1480

Case 3:13-cv-01480-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 5 of 5