Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05814/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05814-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Lawrence Robinson

Petitioner,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

1:02-CV-05814 OWW

1:97-CR-05129 OWW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

PETITION TO VACATE AND SET

ASIDE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

I. INTRODUCTION

Lawrence Robinson (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se, petitions this Court to vacate his conviction

and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner contends

that he suffered from (i) prosecutorial misconduct during grand

jury proceedings because the government solicited misleading and

false testimony and (ii) ineffective assistance of counsel during

pre-trial, trial, and appellate proceedings because counsel

failed to “take appropriate steps necessary in objecting and

filing suppression motions to preserve Petitioner’s

constitutional right to challenge federal jurisdiction under the

Hobbs Act.” (Doc. 326, filed July 8, 2002 at 3, 6.) The United

States opposes this petition. (Doc. 328, filed Aug. 8, 2002.)

Case 1:02-cv-05814-OWW Document 1 Filed 09/06/06 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

27

28

2

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged by indictment with various crimes

stemming from two robberies. In connection with the first

robbery of a residence on November 21, 1996, Petitioner was

charged with theft of a firearm and aiding and abetting (Count 3,

18 U.S.C. §§ 924(1) and (2)); and carrying a firearm during a

crime of violence (Count 4, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)). (Doc. 1,

Indictment, filed May 22, 1997 at 1-3.) In connection with the

second robbery of an electronics store, Videotronics, on May 1,

1996, Petitioner was charged with interference with commerce by

robbery and aiding and abetting (Count 5, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a)

and (2)); carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (Count 6,

18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1)); and death caused by use of a firearm

during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting (Count 7, 18

U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1) and (2). (Id. at 4-5.)

A jury convicted Petitioner on all but one of the charges.

For his role in the residential robbery, Petitioner was convicted

on the theft of a firearm charge, but acquitted on the charge of

carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. (Doc. 160,

Verdict, filed Feb.4, 1999.) The same jury convicted Petitioner

on all counts related to the electronics store robbery. (Id.) 

Robinson was sentenced to life imprisonment plus a term of four

hundred and twenty (420) months. (Doc. 200, filed May 3, 1999.)

Petitioner timely appealed his conviction and sentence to

Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 201, Notice of Appeal, filed May 6, 1999.)

Citing a lack of evidence against Defendant with respect to the

residential robbery, the Ninth Circuit reversed the theft of a

firearm, vacated his sentence, and remanded to the district court

Case 1:02-cv-05814-OWW Document 1 Filed 09/06/06 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

27

28

3

for resentencing. (Doc. 294, filed June 7, 2000.) On May 17,

2000, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing

en banc. United States v. Robinson, 221 F.3d 1349 (9th Cir.

2000). On remand, Petitioner’s sentence was reduced to life

imprisonment plus a term of three hundred (300) months. (Doc.

302, filed Oct. 23, 2000.) The sentence was affirmed by the

Ninth Circuit on July 20, 2001. (Doc. 319.) Petitioner’s

petition for writ of certiorari was denied on October 2, 2000. 

Robinson v. United States, 531 U.S. 911 (2000).

On October 22, 2001, Petitioner was granted a six month

extension to file a motion to vacate or set aside his conviction

or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 320.) Petitioner

filed his motion on July 18, 2002, alleging that he suffered as a

result of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial

misconduct. (Doc. 326, filed July 18 2002.) The government

filed a response. (Doc. 328, filed August 8, 2002.)

IV. DISCUSSION

A habeas petitioner in federal custody may file a motion “at

any time” to “vacate, set aside or correct a [federal] sentence”

upon the ground:

that the sentence was impose in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States, 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...

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Case 1:02-cv-05814-OWW Document 1 Filed 09/06/06 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

27

28

4

A. Statute of Limitations.

“Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to advance the finality of criminal

convictions.” Mayle v. Felix, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 2573 (2005). 

Towards that end, it adopted a one-year limitation period running

from the latest of: 

(1) The date on which the judgment of conviction

becomes final; 

(2) The date on which the impediment to making a

motion created by governmental action in violation

of the Constitutions or laws of the United States

is removed, if the [petitioner] was prevented from

making a motion by such governmental action; 

(3) The date on which the right asserted was initially

recognized 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Here, Petitioner does not assert (i) that government action

prevented him from making the motion; (ii) that there is an

applicable newly recognized right by the Supreme Court; or (iii)

that the facts supporting the motion was discovered after “the

date on which the judgment of conviction [became] final.” 

Petitioner’s conviction became final on October 2, 2000,

when the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a

writ of certiorari. Although the limitations period was

initially set to expire on October 2, 2001 pursuant to AEDPA, the

district court extended Petitioner’s time to April 23, 2002. 

(Doc. 320, filed Oct. 22, 2001.) Despite the extension,

Case 1:02-cv-05814-OWW Document 1 Filed 09/06/06 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

27

28

5

Petitioner failed to meet the scheduled deadline, filing his

petition on July 8, 2002. As a result, the petition for a writ

of habeas corpus is untimely and must be dismissed.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED as untimely. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: 9/2/06 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

____________________________________________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05814-OWW Document 1 Filed 09/06/06 Page 5 of 5