Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01758-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO PEREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

03 CR 5033 AWI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO AMEND,

VACATE OR SET ASIDE THE

SENTENCE

(28 U.S.C. § 2255)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Antonio Perez (“Petitioner”) seeks collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

from the sentence of 77 months imprisonment and 36 months supervised release that was

imposed by this court on June 18, 2003, following Petitioner’s entry of a guilty plea to one count

of a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 – deported alien found in the United States. For the reasons

that follow, Petitioner’s motion will be denied.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about July 26, 1999, Petitioner was deported from the United States following a

felony conviction for Possession for Sale of a Controlled Substance. On or about September 26,

2002, he was found within the United States without having obtained the consent of the Attorney

General of the United States. On April 7, 2003, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty, without the

Case 1:07-cv-01758-AWI Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

benefit of a plea agreement, to a single count of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

According to the “Offense Level Computations” in the Presentence Investigation Report

(“PIR”) prepared by the Probation Department in accordance with the United States Sentencing

Commission Guidelines Manual, amended November 1, 2002 (“USSG”), the “Total Offense

Level” for Petitioner was 21: the base offense level for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 was 8; 16

levels were added pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because Petitioner was previously

deported after “a conviction for a felony that is a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence

imposed exceeded 13 months”; there were no Chapter Four Enhancements; and the offense level

was reduced by 3 for Petitioner’s acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The Court

accepted the recommendations of the PIR and sentenced Petitioner to be imprisoned for a total

term of 77 months to be followed by a supervised release for a term of 36 months. Petitioner

now claims that the addition of 16 levels was unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court

decisions and therefore seeks to amend, vacate or set aside the sentence.

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides that a “prisoner in custody under sentence of a court

established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the

sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may

move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”

Furthermore, “a district court must grant a hearing to determine the validity of a petition brought

under that section, ‘[u]nless the motions and the files and records of the case conclusively show

that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.’” United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th

Cir.1994) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The court may deny a hearing if the movant’s allegations,

viewed against the record, fail to state a claim for relief or “are so palpably incredible or patently

frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal.” United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1159

(9th Cir.1996) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1269, 117 (1997). To earn

Case 1:07-cv-01758-AWI Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

 Petitioner’s motion is titled “Motion for Permission to File Amended and Supplemental 1

Pleading to Petitioner’s Motion 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 Pursuant Rule 15 of Fed. R. of Civ. P. in

Light of New Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington; Booker v. U.S. & Fanfan v. U.S.” (sic).

3

the right to a hearing, therefore, the movant must make specific factual allegations which, if true,

would entitle him to relief. Id. Mere conclusory statements in a section 2255 motion are

insufficient to require a hearing. United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.1980),

cert. denied, 451 U.S. 938 (1981).

28 U.S.C. § 2255 also provides for a “1-year period of limitation” to run from the latest of

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which a

government-created impediment to bringing a section 2255 claim is removed; (3) the date on

which a right to bring the action was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has

been newly recognized and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or, (4) the

date on which the facts supporting a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of

due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1)-(4). 

DISCUSSION

A. Statute of Limitations

Petitioner’s motion was filed on March 16, 2005, nearly 21 months after the date his

judgment was made final, while the statute under which Petitioner brings the motion offers only

a one-year period of limitation. The caption of Petitioner’s motion implies that Petitioner filed a

previous section 2255 motion at some earlier time , but an examination of the Court’s docket and 1

files revealed no such motion and the instant motion makes no reference to an earlier one

anywhere in the body of the text. Accordingly, the Court shall construe this motion as the only

one filed by Petitioner and proceed to evaluate it for timeliness. 

In order to determine if the petition is timely, the court must first determine which of the

possible starting dates for the running of the statute of limitations applies. The first of the

possible starting points begins to run on the date that the judgment becomes final. Judgment

Case 1:07-cv-01758-AWI Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

against Petitioner was entered on June 17, 2003, the same day Petitioner was sentenced. That

judgment became final the day following the last day on which notice of appeal could have been

filed. In a criminal case, a notice of appeal must be filed within 10 days of the court’s entry of

judgment. Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b)(1)(A). An examination of the Court’s docket and files

revealed that no such notice was filed in this case. Therefore, Petitioner’s judgment may be

deemed final at the latest on June 28, 2003, and the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the

statute began to run on that date, absent some fact justifying a different starting date for the

period of limitations.

In this case, Petitioner alleges no government-created impediment to bringing a section

2255 claim, therefore no discussion is necessary as to the second of the possible starting points. 

Likewise, there is no claim of facts supporting the petition that could not have been discovered

through due diligence, therefore the fourth of the possible starting or triggering events does not

apply. 

The third starting point would begin to run on the date on which a right to bring the action

was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized and made

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Petitioner’s claim relies entirely on the

Supreme Court decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and the more recent

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). In Booker, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its

holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and applied its holding in Blakely to

the USSG. “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence

exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict

must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 543

U.S. at 243. However, by its own terms, the Booker holding only applies “‘to all cases on direct

review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a “clear

break” with the past.’” Id. at 268 (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987)).

This Circuit has also made absolutely clear that neither of the decisions relied upon by

Case 1:07-cv-01758-AWI Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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 apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Ninth Circuit, applying the

analysis set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989), has refused to give retroactive

effect of the rule in Blakely to any case that was final before Blakely was decided; that is, to any

case on collateral review. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005). Using the

same analysis, the Ninth Circuit has held that the rule in Booker does not apply retroactively to

cases on collateral review. United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, the statute of limitations for Petitioner to bring a claim under this section began to

run on June 28, 2003, when his judgment became final, and expired on June 29, 2004,

considerably earlier than the filing of the present motion.

Therefore, the Court has no choice but to find that Petitioner’s motion was not timely

filed. 

ORDER

Based on the above memorandum opinion, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to vacate, correct or set aside the sentence is DENIED; and 

2. the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the CASE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01758-AWI Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 Page 5 of 5