Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01336-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN MADERA, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1336 OWW

(No. CR-F-03-5131 REC)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255 AND DIRECTING

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

On September 26, 2006, petitioner Edwin Madera, proceeding

in pro per, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Petitioner was indicted with others with one count of 

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846, ten counts of

distribution of methamphetamine in violation of Sections

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and one count of possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of

Case 1:06-cv-01336-OWW Document 2 Filed 10/04/06 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

2

Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). On June 7, 2004, petitioner,

who was represented by Assistant Federal Defender Ann Veris,

pleaded guilty pursuant to a written Plea Agreement to the

conspiracy count. The plea agreement specifically provided:

The defendant is aware that Title 18, United

States Code, Section 3742 affords a defendant

the right to appeal the sentence imposed. 

Acknowledging this, the defendant knowingly

waives the right to appeal his conviction or

sentence (or the manner in which that

sentence was determined) which is in

accordance with the maximum provided [by]

Title 21, United States Code, Section

841(b)(1)(A) on the grounds set forth in

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 or

on any ground whatever, in exchange for the

concessions made by the United States in this

plea agreement. The defendant also waives

his right to challenge his conviction,

sentence or the manner in which it was

determined in any post-conviction attack,

including but not limited to a motion brought

under Title 28, United States Code, Sections

2241 or 2255.

Petitioner was sentenced on March 21, 2005 to 151 months

imprisonment. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal.

Petitioner asserts two grounds for relief. 

Ground One is captioned “Sixth Amendment violation”. 

Petitioner contends:

I was enhanced for being on parole and or

being out of prison for a certain amount of

time, before committing the instant offense. 

It is a violation to sentence me to any

sentence, when a jury wasn’t made aware of

the charge. 

Petitioner asserts that he did not raise this ground on appeal

because “my lawyer stated that Booker didn’t apply to me.”

Ground Two is captioned “ineffective assistance of counsel”. 

Case 1:06-cv-01336-OWW Document 2 Filed 10/04/06 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

3

Petitioner contends: 

My attorney allowed me to waive my rights,

knowing at the time of litigation that

certain were applicable to me.

Petitioner asserts that he did not raise this ground on appeal

because “my attorney continued to influence me to take the plea,

knowing my rights was [sic] being violated, according to Booker.”

In contending that the one-year statute of limitations, see

discussion infra, does not bar this motion, petitioner asserts:

After speaking with my attorney on numerous

occasions, she stated to me I couldn’t

appeal. The law states different, and as

soon as I found out she didn’t follow

procedure, I acted.

As noted, a one-year period of limitation applies to a

Section 2255 motion, which limitation period runs from the latest

of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of

conviction became 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.

Given petitioner’s claims, the one-year limitation commenced

Case 1:06-cv-01336-OWW Document 2 Filed 10/04/06 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

4

in late March 2005, the date on which the judgment of conviction

became final.

An untimely petition may be considered timely filed if the

doctrine of equitable tolling applies. 

In Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Cal.,

128 F.3d 1283 (9 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099 and th

523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled on other grounds, 163 F.3d 530

(9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit held that the one-year

limitations period applicable to Section 2255 motions is subject

to equitable tolling. However, the Ninth Circuit further held:

Equitable tolling will not be available in

most cases, as extensions of time will only

be granted if ‘extraordinary circumstances’

beyond a petitioner’s control make it

impossible to file a petition on time ... We

have no doubt that district judges will take

seriously Congress’s desire to accelerate the

federal habeas process, and will only

authorize extensions when this high hurdle is

surmounted.

Id. at 1288-1289. As explained in Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d

796, 799 (9 Cir.2003): th

The prisoner must show that the

‘extraordinary circumstances’ were the cause

of his untimeliness ... Equitable tolling is

justified in few cases, though. ‘Indeed, the

threshold necessary to trigger equitable

tolling [under the AEDPA] is very high, lest

the exceptions swallow the rule.’ ...

[Petitioner] ‘bears the burden of showing

that this extraordinary exclusion should

apply to him.’ ... Determining whether

equitable tolling is warranted is a ‘factspecific inquiry.’ ....

Petitioner’s explanation quoted above does not demonstrate

extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that made it

Case 1:06-cv-01336-OWW Document 2 Filed 10/04/06 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

5

impossible for him to file a timely Section 2255 motion. The

alleged advice from Ms. Veris that petitioner could not do so,

undoubtedly based on the waiver in the written plea agreement,

did not prevent petitioner from preparing and filing a Section

2255 motion within the one-year limit.

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED as timebarred.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01336-OWW Document 2 Filed 10/04/06 Page 5 of 5