Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01573/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01573-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO PALACIOS-CASTRO, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1573 REC

(No. CR-F-03-5456 REC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR RESPONDENT

On December 12, 2005, petitioner Eduardo Palacios-Castro

filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Petitioner was charged with being a deported alien found in

the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Petitioner,

who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty pursuant to a

written Plea Agreement on January 26, 2004. Pursuant to the

terms of the Plea Agreement, petitioner waived his right to

appeal his conviction and sentence “on any ground and any appeal

right conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742" and agreed “not to contest

Case 1:05-cv-01573-REC Document 2 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 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

2

his sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including, but

not limited to, any proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255". 

Petitioner was sentenced on January 26, 2004 to 51 months

incarceration. Petitioner did not file a Notice of Appeal.

Petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to Section

2255 on several grounds.

As noted, petitioner waived his right to file a Section 2255

motion in the Plea Agreement. 

Section 2255 provides that a one-year period of limitation

applies to a Section 2255 motion, which limitation period runs

from the latest of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of

conviction became final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to

making a motion created by governmental

action in violation of the Constitution or

laws of the United States is removed, if the

movant was prevented from making a motion by

such governmental action;

(3) 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; or 

(4) the date on which the facts supporting

the claim or claims presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

Here, it appears that petitioner’s motion is barred by the oneyear limitations period. In Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for

Central Dist. of Cal., 128 F.3d 1283 (9 Cir. 1997), cert. th

denied, 522 U.S. 1099 and 523 U.S. 1061 (1998), overruled on

Case 1:05-cv-01573-REC Document 2 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 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

3

other grounds, 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit

held that the one-year limitations period applicable to Section

2255 motions is subject to equitable tolling. However, the Ninth

Circuit further held:

Equitable tolling will not be available in

most cases, as extensions of time will only

be granted if ‘extraordinary circumstances’

beyond a petitioner’s control make it

impossible to file a petition on time ... We

have no doubt that district judges will take

seriously Congress’s desire to accelerate the

federal habeas process, and will only

authorize extensions when this high hurdle is

surmounted.

Id. at 1288-1289. Petitioner makes no showing that he is

entitled to equitable tolling.

As a general rule, the court allows a petitioner to file an

amended motion setting forth the date on which the petitioner

contends his claim for relief accrued and/or setting forth the

facts upon which the petitioner bases a claim of equitable

tolling. The court will not do so here because petitioner is not

entitled to relief in any event.

Petitioner’s claims for relief are based on his contentions

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional and his sentence is

unconstitutional since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely

v. Washington, ___ 124 S.Ct. 466 (2004) and United States v.

Booker, ___ 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). However, neither Blakey nor

Booker are retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9 Cir. 2005); th

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

Case 1:05-cv-01573-REC Document 2 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Furthermore, petitioner’s contention that the felony and

aggravated felony provisions of Section 1326 are unconstitutional

on their face is without merit. Petitioner’s claim is based on

the premise that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998) has been or will be overruled. However, this claim is

precluded by the law of the Ninth Circuit. See United States v.

Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n.16 (9 Cir. 2005)(“Although th

recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has perhaps called into

question the continuing viability of Almendarez-Torres ..., we

are bound to follow a controlling Supreme Court precedent until

it is explicitly overruled by that Court.”).

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Eduardo Palacios-Castro’s motion to vacate,

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

denied.

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01573-REC Document 2 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 4