Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00554-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff/ )

Respondent, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MARVIN NAJERA RIOS, )

)

)

Defendant/ )

Petitioner. )

)

)

No. CR-F-98-5392 OWW

(No. CV-F-05-554 OWW) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF

SENTENCE (Docs. 329 & 330) 

On April 25, 2005, Petitioner Marvin Najera Rios, proceeding

in pro per, filed a “Request for Review of Sentence.” The

Clerk’s Office this motion to be a second motion to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

assigned a civil case number to the motion. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a written Plea

Agreement, (Doc. 238), to Count One of seven count indictment,

charging him with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of

Case 1:05-cv-00554-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 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

2

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Petitioner was sentenced on May

5, 2001 to 120 months in custody and 60 months supervised

release. (Doc. 283). Petitioner, who waived his right to appeal

his conviction and sentence, did not file a Notice of Appeal. 

On November 16, 2001, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate,

set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

(Doc. 304). Petitioner requested the Court “‘vacate the sentence

and allow him to proceed to trial, or resentence him so that the

INS will not deport him’ based on four grounds: (1) the

indictment was defective; (2) counsel allegedly never advised

Petitioner of ‘the consequences of deportation’; (3) counsel

alleged[ly] failed to conduct discovery on the liquid alleged to

be part of the methamphetamine; (4) counsel allegedly failed to

contest the disparate sentences given to co-conspirators.” (Doc.

325, pg. 1). By Order filed on May 25, 2004, Petitioner’s

Section 2255 motion was denied and the Court declined to issue a

Certificate of Appealability. (Docs. 325 and 326). 

In his “Request for Review of Sentence”, Petitioner contends

that the Court’s drug quantity determination for sentencing

purposes violated Petitioner’s rights as enunciated by United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Petitioner asserts:

Relief can and should be granted through a

liberal construction of the instant pleading,

either as an emergency petition for discharge

and immediate release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1621(a) and/or Writ of Audita Querela;

through 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as the recent

modification of the Guidelines as advisory

instead of mandatory, clarifying

Congressional intent, is a clarifying

Case 1:05-cv-00554-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 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

3

amendment to the guidelines and because

clarifying amendments to the Guidelines are

to be applied retroactively; through 18

U.S.C. § 3742 as the sentence was imposed in

violation of the law, an incorrect

application of the guidelines and because the

sentence is greater than the sentence

specified in the guideline range. 

Additionally, the instant petition could be

construed as a Rule 60(b) Motion or an actual

innocence claim as Petitioner is actually

innocent of the sentence imposed because the

Supreme Court has declared that the

sentencing system under which Petitioner was

sentenced is unconstitutional and no longer a

mandatory scheme, it has essentially

invalidated the system upon which Petitioner

was sentenced. This petition could also be

construed as a general habeas corpus writ.

The Court need not address any of the various procedural

theories upon which Petitioner seeks to base this motion. Nor

does the Court need to rectify the Clerk’s Office’s

characterization of Petitioner’s motion as a Section 2255 motion. 

United States v. Booker does not apply retroactively to

convictions that became final prior to its pronouncement. United

States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9 Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 th

U.S. 1155 (2006). There is no legal basis to grant the relief

sought by Petitioner under any procedural posture.

Petitioner’s “Request for Review of Sentence” is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00554-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/14/08 Page 3 of 3