Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01104/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01104-0/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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, ) CR 06-1102 PHX SMM 

) CIV 08-1104 PHX SMM (MEA)

v. )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOSE ARVIZU MONTIJO, )

) 

Defendant/Movant. )

)

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE:

Mr. Jose Arvizu Montijo (“Movant”) is currently

confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix,

Arizona, pursuant to his conviction by the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 16, 2008,

Movant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asking the

Court to vacate his conviction. See Docket No. 1. Respondent

filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody

(“Response”) (Docket No. 2) on August 25, 2008. Respondents

contend the petition was not timely filed and, therefore, it

must be dismissed. The time allowed for Movant to file a reply

to the response to his section 2255 petition expired September

23, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01104-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/01/08 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-

I. Procedural History

On or about November 30, 2006, Movant entered into a

written plea agreement with regard to the charge against him,

i.e., one count of illegal entry after deportation, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) as enhanced by subsection (b)(2). See

Docket No. 8, Attach. In the plea agreement Movant waived his

right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and

sentence if the sentence imposed was within the sentencing range

specified in the plea agreement. See id., Attach. In the plea

agreement, Movant admitted he had been deported from the United

States in 2005 and that he was voluntarily present and found in

the United States in 2006. See id., Attach. Movant further

admitted he was under supervised release for convictions for

possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and

importation of marijuana when he committed his crime of illegal

reentry after deportation. See id., Attach.

II. Discussion

Section 2255 provides, inter alia:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to

a motion under this section. The limitation

period shall run from ... the date on which

the judgment of conviction becomes final....

[or] 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....

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994 & Supp. 2008).

Movant’s guilty plea was accepted, the written plea

agreement was entered into the record, and Movant was sentenced

on March 5, 2007. See Docket Nos. 11, 12, 13. Judgment was

entered and docketed by the Clerk of the Court on March 9, 2007.

Case 2:08-cv-01104-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/01/08 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

1

Although § 2255 does not define “final”, the Supreme Court has

applied its ordinary standard of finality. “Finality attaches

when [the Supreme] Court affirms a conviction on the merits on

direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, or

when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires.” Clay v.

United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003).

Where no appeal is sought, then the time begins to run “upon the

expiration of the time during which she could have sought review

by direct appeal.” U.S. v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th

Cir. 2001). A federal criminal defendant has ten days after

“entry” of the judgment being appealed to file a notice of

appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). In calculating those ten days, the

Court must exclude intervening “Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

holidays.” Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2) (as amended effective

12/1/02.) “Entry” of a judgment occurs not upon pronouncement,

or signing, but upon docketing by the clerk of the court. []

United States v. Najera-Escobar, 2006 WL 2989134, at *2-*3 (D. Ariz.).

-3-

See Docket No. 14. 

The plea agreement signed by Movant waived his right to

a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. Therefore,

Movant’s conviction and sentence became final on March 23, 2007,

when the time for filing a direct appeal of his conviction and

sentence expired. See United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220,

1223 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d

1223, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2006); Moshier v. United States, 402

F.3d 116, 118 (2d Cir. 2005); Sanchez-Castellano v. United

States, 358 F.3d 424, 428 (6th Cir. 2004) (concluding that “an

unappealed federal criminal judgment becomes final ten days

after it is entered”).1

Accordingly, Movant had until March 23, 2008, to file

his federal habeas petition. The petition filed on June 16,

2008, was filed approximately three months after the statute of

limitations on his section 2255 action expired.

Case 2:08-cv-01104-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/01/08 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-

The one-year deadline imposed by the AEDPA on the

filing section 2255 motions is, in effect, a statute of

limitations subject to equitable tolling. See United States v.

Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). The doctrine of

equitable tolling is to be applied sparingly to section 2255

actions, i.e., only if “extraordinary circumstances” beyond the

prisoner’s control made it impossible for him to file his

section 2255 motion prior to the expiration of the time stated

in the AEDPA. See id., citing Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919,

922 (9th Cir. 2003). Movant does not offer the court a basis

for applying the doctrine of equitable tolling to his habeas

petition. 

III. Conclusion

Movant did not file his section 2255 petition within

the one-year statute of limitations. Movant does not assert

that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of

limitations. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Arvizu Montijo’s

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

Case 2:08-cv-01104-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/01/08 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-

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver

of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact

and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 30th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01104-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/01/08 Page 5 of 5