Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02120/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02120-0/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

- 1 - 05CV2390-J / 04CR2959-J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

CIVIL CASE NO. 07CV2120 J

CRIM CASE NO. 04CR2959 J

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

 v.

JUAN MANUEL GONZALEZ-PARRA,

Defendant/Petitioner.

Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Juan Manuel Gonzalez-Parra’s (“Petitioner”) 28

U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 43.] The Government has

not filed a responsive pleading. For the reasons set forth below, the Court SUMMARILY

DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner’s Petition.

Background

On October 24, 2004, Petitioner illegally entered the United States on foot

approximately 18 miles east of the Tecate, California, Port of Entry. (See Gov’t’s Opp’n at

3.) A records check revealed that Petitioner was a Mexican national who had most recently

been removed from the United States on August 20, 2004, and did not have legal

authorization to reenter the United States. (See id. at 4.) Petitioner confirmed much of this

information in a Mirandized post-arrest statement, and admitted that he and nine other

Case 3:07-cv-02120-J Document 3 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 6
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 - 05CV2390-J / 04CR2959-J

individuals illegally climbed over the international border fence and walked north until they

were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agents. (See id.) 

On November 16, 2004, Petitioner was indicted on a charge of being a deported

alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. [Doc. No. 5.] On April

25, 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to the sole count of the indictment. (See id.) 

Prior to sentencing, both the Government and Petitioner addressed the §3553(a)

sentencing factors for the Court to consider. (See Aug. 10, 2005, Sent. H’rg Tr. at 4-8.) 

Petitioner’s counsel argued that: (1) Petitioner had made a full and complete confession to

arresting officers, (2) he returned illegally to the United States because of his involvement

in a relationship with a woman for the past 26 years and their two young children, (3) he

had maintained steady employment, and (4) the advisory guidelines were “somewhat

draconian before the Supreme Court changed the law and now makes the guidelines

advisory.” (See id. at 4-7.) In response, the Government argued for a sentence of 77

months, acknowledging that this would be a significant increase from Petitioner’s last

prison commitment of 16 months. (See id. at 7-8.) However, it urged that Petitioner

deserved the sentence because his spotty employment record and history of drug offenses

indicated that “his business while in the United States is simply one thing: to sell drugs.” 

(Id.) 

At the sentencing hearing on August 10, 2005, the Court determined that the

Advisory Guidelines “set appropriate sentencing parameters for the court” based upon “the

probation officer’s analysis, [and] the Court’s analysis with reference to the 3553(a) factors

- specifically, the history of [Petitioner], the need to deter [Petitioner] from further criminal

acts, and also to protect the public from future crimes by [Petitioner].” (Id. at 4.)

The Court concluded Petitioner fell within the sentencing guideline range of 70 to

87 months due to Petitioner’s total adjusted offense level of 21 and criminal history score

of 12 . (See id. at 8.) The total offense adjusted level of 21 was the result of a base offense

level of 8, with a 16-level increase for Petitioner’s deportation subsequent to a conviction

for an aggravated felony, and a 3-level downward adjustment for “timely acceptance of

Case 3:07-cv-02120-J Document 3 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 6
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 - 05CV2390-J / 04CR2959-J

responsibility.” (See id.) The criminal history score of 12 was based on Petitioner’s

extensive criminal history, which placed him in Criminal History V. (See Gov’t’s Opp’n at

4.) In 1990, Petitioner was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced

to 16 months in prison. (See id.) In 1991, Petitioner was convicted of being under the

influence of a controlled substance, and was sentenced to 90 days in jail. (See id.) In 1996,

Petitioner was convicted of shoplifting and providing a false identity to a police officer, for

which he was sentenced to 20 days in jail. (See id.) On August 10, 2003, Petitioner was

convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale, and was sentenced to 16 months

in state prison. (See id.) Finally, on May 30, 2004, six days after his release from state

custody and deportation to Mexico, Petitioner was apprehended and convicted for illegally

reentering the United States. (See id.) He received a sentence of 75 days in custody and

was deported from the United States on August 20, 2004. (See id.) 

The Court decided to sentence Petitioner to the low end of the guideline, giving him

70 months imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. (See id. at 9.) In

pronouncing the 70 month sentence, the Court stated:

that what has been demonstrated by [Petitioner] is that he basically, when he reenters the United States, is . . supporting his drug habit, that he was certainly

involved in the sale of drugs and other related offenses. The base offense level

and the calculated guideline range, I believe, present the Court with a reasonable

basis for imposition of sentence. 

(See id. at 8-9.) 

On August 17, 2005, the Court entered the judgment and commitment. [Doc. No.

20.] On August 19, 2005, Petitioner, filed his Notice of Appeal. [Doc. No. 21.] On

December 30, 2005, proceeding pro se, Petitioner filed the instant Petition asking this Court

to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. No. 28.] 

On February 28, 2006, Petitioner filed his opening brief with the Ninth Circuit. (See

Gov’t’s Opp’n at 3.) On July 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment. 

[Doc. No. 39.] 

Case 3:07-cv-02120-J Document 3 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 - 05CV2390-J / 04CR2959-J

On December 30, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. No. 28.] On September 13, 2006, Petitioner’s

motion was denied. [Doc. No. 40.] On November 5, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant

Motion pursuant to § 2255. [Doc. No. 43.]

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court takes judicial notice of the Clerk’s Docket in

criminal case No. 04cr2959. A court may take judicial notice of those facts that are

“capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questions.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court SUMMARILY DISMISSES

with prejudice Petitioner’s Motion because it is: (1) untimely filed and (2) barred as a

successive habeas petition under Section 2255. 

I. Summary Dismissal of Petitioner’s Section 2255 Petition

A district court may summarily dismiss a Section 2255 motion if “the motion and

the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also United States v. Espinoza, 866 F.2d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir. 1988);

United States v. Matthew, 833 F. 2d 161, 164 (9th Cir. 1987). Summary dismissal is

appropriate even without responsive briefing from the Government. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255;

Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). As set forth below,

Petitioner’s Section 2255 Petition is SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice because

it is: (1) untimely filed and (2) barred as a successive Section 2255 motion. 

A. Petition is Untimely

A petitioner has one year to file a petition under Section 2255. This one-year

period: 

shall run from the latest of (1) the date on which the judgment of

conviction become final; (2) the date on which the impediment to

making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was

prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the

date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme

Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the

date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

Case 3:07-cv-02120-J Document 3 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 - 05CV2390-J / 04CR2959-J

28 U.S.C. § 2255; see United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, the applicable one-year limitations period ran from “the date on which the judgment

of conviction [became] final” because Petitioner has not provided any evidence the statute

of limitations should start at a later date. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For instance, Petitioner does

not contend, nor does it appear, the Government created an impediment to filing his

Petition. Similarly, the Petition does not cite to a right initially recognized by the Supreme

Court that would be retroactively applicable. Furthermore, Petitioner does not allege his

trial counsel lacked due diligence in discovering relevant facts that would have affected the

length of his sentence.

 Petitioner did not file this Petition until November 5, 2007, more than one year after

the expiration of statute of limitations under Section 2255. [Doc. No. 43.] On August 17,

2005, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to seventy (70)

months in prison with three years supervised release. [Doc. No. 20.] Petitioner appealed

his conviction on August 18, 2005, within the ten-day period during which he could file an

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The Ninth Circuit issued a judgment affirming this

Court’s decision on September 18, 2006. [See Doc. No. 41.] Thus, Petitioner had one year

from September 18, 2006 to file a petition under Section 2255. Petitioner failed to file this

Petition in a timely manner, on or before September 18, 2007. Therefore, the Court

SHOULD FIND the Petition barred by the statute of limitations and, SHOULD DENY the

Petition.

B. Petition is Barred as a Successive Section 2255 Petition

The instant Petition, filed by Petitioner on November 5, 2007, is Petitioner’s second

habeas petition. On December 30, 2005, Petitioner previously filed a habeas petition under

Section 2255, which was subsequently denied on September 13, 2006. [Doc. Nos. 28, 40.] 

Because Petitioner’s successive Petition is not accompanied by a certificate of

appealability, the Court SHOULD DENY Petitioner’s Petition. 

A second or successive motion styled under Section 2255 must be certified by a

panel of the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255; 2244(b)(3)(A) (2006). To obtain

Case 3:07-cv-02120-J Document 3 Filed 12/28/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 - 05CV2390-J / 04CR2959-J

certification to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion, the motion must satisfy

one of the following criteria: 

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law,

made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that

was previously unavailable. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2255; 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B); see also United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664

(9th Cir. 1998); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (petitioner could not

circumvent successive motion provisions by disguising Section 2255 claims in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition). 

Because Petitioner has previously submitted a habeas petition, and did not submit a

certificate of appealability, the Court lacks authority to entertain this successive habeas

petition. Therefore, the Court SHOULD FIND Petitioner is procedurally barred from

filing a second claim for relief under Section 2255. 

Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All Parties of Record

Case 3:07-cv-02120-J Document 3 Filed 12/28/07 Page 6 of 6