Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01871/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01871-0/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 

17cr4358-MMA 

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,

v. 

GREGORIO CRUZ-MERINO, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17cr4358-MMA 

Related Case No. 18cv1871-MMA 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 

[Doc. No. 25] 

 On January 9, 2018, Defendant Gregorio Cruz-Merino pleaded guilty to a singlecount Information charging him with illegal reentry, in violation of Title 8, United States 

Code, section 1326(a) and (b). See Doc. No. 17. The Court sentenced Defendant to a 

custodial term of thirty (30) months and entered judgment accordingly. See Doc. No. 24. 

Defendant, proceeding pro se, has submitted a document styled as a motion to vacate his 

conviction and sentence under Title 28, section 2255. See Doc. No. 25. However, 

Defendant has left the majority of the 2255 form blank. In response to Questions 14 and 

16(a)(8), Defendant indicates that “this is my appeal.” Id. at 2, 3. In response to 

Question 17(b)(1), Defendant states that he appeals “because [the sentence] is to[o] much 

time for me.” Id. at 6. 

Case 3:18-cv-01871-MMA Document 2 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17cr4358-MMA 

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 Court notes that Defendant did not previously appeal his conviction and 

sentence directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Based on 

Defendant’s representations in his current submission, it appears that he intended to do 

so, but was stymied when he did not “receive any form.” Id. at 6, 8. It further appears 

that Defendant’s current intent is to appeal – not collaterally challenge – his conviction 

and sentence. 

As relevant here, “a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district court 

within 14 days after . . . the entry of . . . judgment . . . .” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 

The Court entered judgment in this action on April 16, 2018. See Doc. No. 24. 

Defendant’s current submission is considered constructively filed as of July 11, 2018, and 

is therefore untimely under Rule 4(b). See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) 

(under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s “notice of appeal was filed at the time the prisoner 

delivered it to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.”). As such, the 

Court construes Defendant’s pro se submission as a motion for an extension of time in 

which to file a notice of appeal from this Court’s judgment. See United States v. 1982 

Sanger 24’ Spectra Boat, 738 F.2d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that the moving 

party’s label for its motion is not controlling and that court will construe the motion, 

however styled, to be the type proper for relief requested). However, because more than 

thirty (30) days has elapsed from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed for filing 

the notice of appeal, the Court is not authorized to extend the time for filing the notice of 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); see also United States v. Green, 89 F.3d 657, 660-61 

(9th Cir. 1996) (stating that Rule 4(b) compliance is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” even 

if its application may be “harsh to a criminal defendant”). 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:18-cv-01871-MMA Document 2 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17cr4358-MMA 

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

Accordingly, the Court construes Defendant’s pro se submission as a motion for 

extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal and DENIES the motion for the 

reasons set forth above. The Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively terminate the 

related civil case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: August 14, 2018 _______________________________________

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01871-MMA Document 2 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3