Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01088/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01088-2/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Oscar Bolanos-Nunez, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-01088-PHX-GMS (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

ORDER 

 TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE: 

Background 

 On May 28, 2013, Defendant/Movant Oscar Bolanos-Nunez (“Movant”) filed a 

Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in 

Federal Custody (Doc. 1). The government responded on December 20, 2013 (Doc. 6). 

The Court granted Movant leave to amend by Order filed March 28, 2014 (Doc. 8). On 

April 14, 2014, Movant filed an amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 

Sentence (Doc. 9) (the “Amended Motion”). On June 12, 2014, the government filed its 

Response (Doc. 13) to the Amended Motion. That Response incorporates by reference 

the government’s original Response (Doc. 6). Movant filed a Reply (Doc. 17) on July 

17, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01088-GMS Document 30 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

 By Order issued February 4, 2015 (Doc. 23), the Court appointed counsel for 

Movant and set an evidentiary hearing to develop the record regarding Movant’s 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Movant alleged that his counsel failed to file a 

notice of appeal upon Movant’s request. An evidentiary hearing was originally set for 

March 10, 2015, but the Court reset the evidentiary hearing upon the government’s 

Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 24) and the Court’s own motion. See

Order Continuing Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 25) and Order Resetting Evidentiary 

Hearing (Doc. 26). An evidentiary hearing currently is set for June 2, 2015. 

 On March 26, 2015, Movant filed a pro se Request for New Attorney (Doc. 27). 

On March 26, 2015, defense counsel filed Counsel’s Response to Request for New 

Attorney (Doc. 28). 

 On May 25, 2015, defense counsel filed a Motion to Vacate Hearing and Dismiss 

§ 2255 Petition (Doc. 29). The government has no objection to the Motion. 

Discussion 

 Movant was released from custody in the Bureau of Prisons on May 23, 2015 in 

CR-12-00199-PHX-GMS. Movant was in agreement with the Motion to Vacate and 

Dismiss § 2255 Petition (Doc. 29) prior to his release, but he failed to sign the Motion to 

Vacate Hearing and Dismiss § 2255 Petition as requested by his counsel. That Movant is 

no longer subject to any form of Court supervision is undisputed. Therefore, both 

counsel urge the Court to dismiss Movant’s Amended Motion (Doc. 9) as Movant has 

completely served his sentence and fails to meet the “in custody” requirement of 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding 

that prisoner “not only must be in custody, he also must claim the right to be released 

from custody”). See also United States v. Theile, 314 F.3d 399, 401-02 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(prisoner cannot collaterally attack a restitution order in a § 2255 motion); Maleng v. 

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491-92 (1989) (per curiam) (prisoner does not remain “in custody” 

merely because his conviction may become basis for later enhancement). Defense 

counsel further advises the Court that the Movant’s claim regarding incorrect 

Case 2:13-cv-01088-GMS Document 30 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

categorization of Movant’s pre-deportation conviction is without legal merit. 

 As Movant fails to meet the “in custody” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the 

Court recommends that the Motion to Dismiss § 2255 Petition (Doc. 29) be granted and 

that Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. 9) be 

dismissed with prejudice. 

Conclusion 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss § 2255 Petition (Doc. 29) 

be granted. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss with prejudice the 

Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentenct (Doc. 9). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because Movant has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to 

file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Vacate Hearing (Doc. 29). Hearing 

scheduled for June 2, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated. 

Case 2:13-cv-01088-GMS Document 30 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Request for New Attorney (Doc. 27). 

Movant’s request is deemed moot. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01088-GMS Document 30 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 4