Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02922/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02922-0/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

ANTONIO REYES-NAVARRO,

Plaintiff(s),

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2922-LAB

ORDER DENYING PETITION TO

vs. VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Defendant(s).

On September 14, 2012, this Court sentenced Antonio Reyes-Navarro to 48-month

imprisonment following his guilty plea for attempting to enter the United States after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. See United States v. Reyes-Navarro, No. 12-cv2141-LAB. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed

his conviction. See United States v. Reyes-Navarro, No. 12-50438 (9th Cir. April 10, 2014).

On December 10, 2014, Reyes-Navarro moved this Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He seeks the reduction on the ground that he recently

became aware of the law that would allow him to apply for the U.S. citizenship. ReyesNavarro argues that if his citizenship application were accepted, his sentence would be

reduced.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a district court may re-sentence a defendant if it concludes

that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,

- 1 - 14-cv-2922

Case 3:14-cv-02922-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/18/14 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

26

27

28

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.”

Even though section 2255 allows for broad collateral review, a mere error of law will not

provide a basis for relief “unless that error resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or

in a proceeding inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Hamilton v.

United States, 67 F.3d 761, 763-64 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Timmreck, 41 U.S.

780, 783-84 (1979)). 

Reyes-Navarro’s petition is without merit. To begin with, the Court is not aware of any

law that would have allowed a convicted defendant such as Reyes-Navarro to apply for the

U.S. citizenship at the time of his sentencing. There is no such a law now, either. Even

assuming that there is such a new law that the Court is not yet aware of, the Court’s failure

to apply a rule that had not been effective at the time of sentencing does not entitle

Petitioner to relief under section 2255. See Hamilton, 67 F.3d at 764 (citing United States

v. Towe, 26 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 1994)) (“[T]he district court’s failure to apply a guideline that

was not effective at the time of sentencing does not give rise to a complete miscarriage of

justice.”). Reyes-Navarro’s petition is accordingly DENIED. 

Rule 11 of the Rules governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 proceedings directs

a district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The

Supreme Court explained that the “substantial showing” standard means “the petitioner must

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000).

Here, Petitioner has not met the “substantial showing” standard with respect to his 

//

//

//

//

- 2 - 14-cv-2922

Case 3:14-cv-02922-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/18/14 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

26

27

28

claim. Accordingly, the Court DENIES certificate of appealability as to all claims asserted by

Petitioner in his motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14-cv-2922

Case 3:14-cv-02922-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/18/14 Page 3 of 3