Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01856/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01856-1/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

3:15-cr-01299-GPC 

 3:17-cv-01856-GPC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

IVAN ROMAN TIZOC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cr-01299-GPC 

 3:17-cv-01856-GPC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 2255

[ECF No. 229]

On March 20, 2018, the Court issued an order denying Defendant’s motion under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 in part, but deferring a ruling on his claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. (ECF No. 233.

1

) Part of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument 

was an assertion that his trial counsel refused to file a timely notice of appeal despite 

Defendant’s request that he do so. The Court instructed the government to respond to the 

order by indicating whether it objected to the Court vacating the criminal judgment in this 

case and re-entering judgment so as to permit Defendant to file a timely appeal. The 

government has filed a notice indicating that it does not object to the Court doing so. 

 

1 The Court’s docket entry citations refer to Defendant’s criminal docket, Case Number 15-cr-1299.

Case 3:17-cv-01856-GPC Document 3 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:15-cr-01299-GPC 

 3:17-cv-01856-GPC

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

(ECF No. 234.) As a result, the Court ORDERS that the criminal judgment in Case 

Number 15-cr-1299 be VACATED and immediately re-entered. 

For the reasons explained in the Court’s earlier order (ECF No. 233), Defendant’s 

§ 2255 motion is DENIED except for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. With 

respect to Defendant’s argument that his counsel was ineffective because counsel refused

to file a timely notice of appeal, the Court GRANTS the § 2255 motion, VACATES the 

criminal judgment in this case, and re-enters an identical judgment. As the Court also 

explained in its previous ruling, the Court will not address “the other IAC arguments 

offered by Defendant in his [§ 2255] motion.” (Id. at 14.) Now that the government has 

declined to object to the Court re-entering judgment to permit Defendant to file a timely 

direct appeal, “Defendant may raise those [other IAC] grounds on his direct appeal,” and 

“if they are rejected, he may raise them in a timely and appropriate § 2255 motion 

thereafter.” (Id.) 

With respect to the portion of Defendant’s § 2255 motion that the Court has denied 

on the merits—Defendant’s assertion that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his 

rights to appeal and collateral attack (see id. at 10–12)—the Court concludes that 

Defendant has not presented “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

As a result, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability with respect to the

portion of the § 2255 motion that the Court has denied.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close Civil Case Number 17-cv1856. This criminal case is referred to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for 

appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01856-GPC Document 3 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2