Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01016/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

MIGUEL PULIDO ROMERO, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1016 REC

(No. CR-F-03-5373 OWW)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO NOTIFY COURT THAT MOTION

BE RECHARACTERIZED AS MOTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

OR TO WITHDRAW MOTION 

On August 5, 2005, petitioner Miguel Pulido Romero,

proceeding in pro per, filed a "Motion to Dismiss or Review to

Adjust Sentence, For Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction."

Petitioner was charged in Count One with conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine

and aiding and abetting, and in Count Two with possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute and aiding and

abetting. Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count One pursuant to a

written plea agreement. The plea agreement provided in pertinent

part:

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 8
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

2. Agreements by the Defendant.

...

(d) 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 any sentence which

is in accordance with the maximum provided in

the statute(s) of conviction (or the manner

in which that sentence was determined) on the

grounds set forth in Title 18, United States

Code, Section 3742 or on any other 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.

...

5. Factual Basis.

The defendant will plead guilty because he is

in fact guilty of the crime set forth in the

Superseding Information, Cr.F.No. 03-5373

REC. The defendant also agrees that his

guilty plea will be based upon the following

facts, although he acknowledges that, as to

other facts, the parties may disagree:

Beginning at a time unknown, but no

later than on or about September 21, 2003,

and continuing to on or about September 22,

2003, within the State and Eastern District

of California, and elsewhere, defendant

Miguel Pulido Romero did knowingly and

intentionally agree and conspire with Sergio

Martinez Galindo, Arturo Reyes Gutierrez and

others to possess and distribute over 500

grams or more or a mixture or substance

containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled

substance. Specifically, on September 22,

2003, a DEA Confidential Source and DEA

Special Agent Eduardo Chavez, acting in an

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 8
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

undercover capacity, met with Galindo,

Gutierrez, and defendant Pulido Romero at a

Denny’s Restaurant parking lot in

Bakersfield, California, for the purpose of

consummating a narcotics transaction. Prior

to this meeting, an informant had negotiated

with Galindo for the purchase of six (6)

pounds of crystal methamphetamine for

$24,000. Galindo had told informant that he

was traveling with an individual named

‘Ricardo’ (identified as Gutierrez) and

another individual nicknamed ‘Guero’ (later

identified as the defendant, Pulido Romero).

That afternoon, co-defendants 

Galindo and Gutierrez arrived at the Denny’s

parking lot in a blue station wagon. The

informant and agent Chavez met with them. 

Defendant Pulido Romero walked over to meet

the group. When the informant asked to see

the merchandise, Galindo directed Gutierrez

to bring the blue station wagon and park it

near defendant Pulido Romero’s green

Thunderbird. Agent Chavez observed Pulido

Romero reach into the driver’s window, stop

the engine, and open the trunk and hood of

the Thunderbird. Gutierrez parked the

station wagon near the Thunderbird while

Galindo opened the hoods of both vehicles as

if to give the impression that they were

attempting to jump start the car.

Agent Chavez walked to the trunk of

the car and asked Pulido Romero if the

‘stuff’ was in the trunk. He said no and

pointed towards the hood of the vehicle. 

Agent Chavez walked to the front of the Ford

Thunderbird and observed Galindo opening the

air filter portion of the engine. The agent

then saw six off-white oval size objects

wrapped in saran wrap, which chemical

analysis showed contained approximately 2,420

grams of methamphetamine.

Pulido Romero gave a false name 

when he was arrested. A fingerprint check

revealed his true identity. At the time,

defendant Pulido Romero knew that

methamphetamine was a controlled substance.

Petitioner was sentenced by Judge Robert Coyle on May 17, 2004 to

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 8
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

Further proceedings in the underlying criminal action were 1

transferred to the docket of Judge Oliver Wanger by order filed on

May 31, 2005.

4

120 months imprisonment, the mandatory minimum for the crime to

which petitioner pleaded guilty. No appeal was filed. 1

In the instant motion, petitioner “demands of this

legislative tribunal assembly the dismissal of this cause because

of the lack of exclusive jurisdictional authority over the exact

geographical location where the alleged criminal activity

mentioned in the indictment took place” and further demanding

of this court to establish the required

exclusive Federal Jurisdiction that have been

merely assumed in this matter, consisting of:

1. Documentation showing ownership of each

and every geographical location mentioned in

the instant indictment wherein the alleged

criminal activity took place.

2. Documentation for legislature of the

State of CALIFORNIA, surrendering

jurisdiction to the Federal government over

the same geographical location as in ‘1.

[sic]

3. Documentation pursuant to Title 40 U.S.C.

§ 255, wherein the United States accepted

jurisdiction to the same geographical

location as specified in #1, or documentation

showing concurrent jurisdiction with the

states over the geographical location in #1

....

Alternatively, the motion requests the court to reconsider the

sentence imposed on him, contending that he is a young man, who

has tried his best in prison, that this is his only crime, that

he has a family to support which caused him to come to the United

States for work, and that the court “now [has] the ability to

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 4 of 8
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

Petitioner cannot obtain the relief sought by this motion 2

pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) because he does not meet the

criteria for reconsideration of an imposed sentence set forth

therein. 

5

have the ‘sentence be given to fit the crime,’ because of the new

Supreme Court Rulings, in BOOKER and BLAKELY.”

As a general rule, challenges to the legality of a federal

conviction and sentence must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 while challenges to the manner of execution of the sentence

must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v.

Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9 Cir. 1984). Here, petitioner th 2

challenges the legality of his conviction and sentence.

In United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 464 (9 Cir. th

2000), the Ninth Circuit holds:

When presented with a pro se motion that

could be recharacterized as a 28 U.S.C. §

2255 motion, a district court should not so

recharacterize the motion unless: (a) the pro

se prisoner, with knowledge of the potential

adverse consequences of such a

recharacterization, consents, or (b) the

district court finds that because of the

relief sought that the motion should be

recharacterized as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

and offers the pro se prisoner the

opportunity, after informing the prisoner of

the consequences of recharacterization, to

withdraw the motion. Under either scenario,

the pro se prisoner has the option to

withdraw the motion and file one allinclusive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion within the

one-year statutory period.

Therefore, before recharacterizing the instant motion as a

motion for relief pursuant to Section 2255, the court advises

petitioner that such a motion Section 2255 has a one-year

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 5 of 8
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

6

limitation period. This limitation period runs 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 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.

Because petitioner’s conviction and sentence became final on May

27, 2004, petitioner must demonstrate that the one-year

limitation period on the claims for relief asserted in the

instant motion commenced to run after May 27, 2004 and within the

meaning of the accrual dates set forth above. Alternatively,

petitioner must demonstrate by specific facts that he is entitled

to equitable tolling of the one-year limitation period. 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 523 U.S. th

1061 (1998), overruled on other grounds, 163 F.3d 503 (9 Cir. th

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:

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

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. In addition, petitioner is advised that the

failure to assert all claims for relief in a recharacterized

Section 2255 motion can result in the later preclusion such

claims in a “second or successive” Section 2255 motion. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner is hereby notified that the court finds that

the instant motion should be recharacterized as a motion for

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner may withdraw the

motion if he does not wish to pursue relief under Section 2255. 

Should petitioner choose to withdraw the motion, he must file a

notice of withdrawal of the motion within 30 days of the filing

date of this order. If petitioner fails to file the notice of

withdrawal within 30 days, the motion shall be adjudicated as a

motion for relief under Section 2255.

2. If petitioner decides to proceed pursuant to Section

2255, he must file an amended Section 2255 motion within 30 days

of the filing date of this order setting forth all claims upon

which he bases relief, the facts upon which he relies in

contending that the claims in the Section 2255 motion are not

time-barred and/or that petitioner is entitled to equitable

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

tolling. Failure to timely comply will result in the dismissal

of the Section 2255 motion as time-barred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 8 of 8