Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01320/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01320-0/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

14-cv-1320-BTM

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELINO 

QUINTERO-CORRALES,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-1320-BTM

Related Nos. 03-cv-1983-BTM

 97-cr-0385-BTM

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

 

ORDER DENYING PETITONER’S 

REQUEST FOR 

RESENTENCING

On May 7, 2014, the Court received a letter from Petitioner requesting a 

reduction of his sentence. On May 27, 2014 the undersigned ordered the 

Clerk of Court to file the letter and accompanying documents into the case 

docket(s). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court construes the letter as 

a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 and DENIES the motion.

//

Case 3:14-cv-01320-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/29/14 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

14-cv-1320-BTM

2

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 29, 2000, a jury found Petitioner guilty of conspiring to 

distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 as well as 

engaging in a financial transaction with drug proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1957. Judgment was entered on April 19, 2000, and Mr. Corrales-Quintero 

was sentenced to 292 months confinement and five years of supervised 

release. (Doc. 112.) On April, 24, 2002, the Ninth Circuit entered a 

judgment affirming the conviction. (Doc. 135.) 

On October 6, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or 

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 136.) The Court 

denied that motion and granted a certificate of appealability on November 9, 

2004. (Doc 146.) On January 5, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal 

with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 14, 2006, the Ninth Circuit 

affirmed the Court’s judgment in a memorandum disposition. (Doc. 150.) 

On May 7, 2014, the Court received a letter from Petitioner requesting 

a reduction of his sentence. 

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s letter includes several allegations, but requests only one 

form of relief: a reduction in sentence. Since he seeks a sentence reduction, 

Petitioner’s request is a habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. Since Petitioner’s first such petition was denied, this is a successive 

petition. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. §§

2241 et seq. (“AEDPA”), requires that “[b]efore a second or successive 

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant 

shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

Case 3:14-cv-01320-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/29/14 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

14-cv-1320-BTM

3

district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Petitioner has not sought and obtained an order from the appropriate court 

(the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) authorizing him to file 

a successive habeas application. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to 

hear his request for relief. See Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 660-61 (2001)

(“AEDPA requires a district court to dismiss a claim in a second or successive 

application unless, as relevant here, the applicant ‘shows’ that the ‘claim relies 

on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable’”); Harrison v. 

Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956, 959-960 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. 

Villa-Gonzalez, 208 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Allen, 

157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); United 

States v. Garcia, 210 F.3d 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. CONCLUSION

Since Petitioner has not obtained permission to file a successive habeas 

corpus petition from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court is without 

jurisdiction to entertain his motion. It is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May ___, 2014 _______________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

Chief United States District Judge

29

Case 3:14-cv-01320-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/29/14 Page 3 of 3