Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00581/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00581-0/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

1In his prior Section 2255 motion, petitioner claimed that

defense counsel Dana Anderson failed to file a notice of appeal

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALOME MADRIGAL OSEGUERA, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-581 REC

(No. CR-F-99-5039 REC)

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE AND DIRECTING ENTRY

OF JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT 

On May 2, 2005, petitioner Salome Madrigal Oseguera filed a

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner contends that his defense counsel,

stated to be Francine Zepeda at all stages, failed to file a

notice of appeal after being requested to do so by petitioner.

On July 2, 2003, petitioner filed a Section 2255 motion

asserting the identical claim against defense counsel Juan

Falcon.1 By Order filed on September 4, 2003, the court

Case 1:05-cv-00581-REC Document 2 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 2
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

after being requested to do so. However, as the court noted in

various orders, petitioner was represented by Juan Falcon at the

time of sentencing. Therefore, petitioner’s assertion in the

instant motion that Francine Zepeda was ineffective because of the

failure to file a notice of appeal is factually incorrect.

2

dismissed this petition as untimely. Judgment for respondent was

entered. Petitioner did not appeal the dismissal. 

Because the court did not reach the merits of petitioner’s

prior Section 2255 motion, the court does not dismiss the instant

motion as a second or successive motion. See United States v.

Mathews, 833 F.2d 161, 164 (9th Cir. 1987).

However, the court again concludes that the instant motion

is untimely for the reasons set forth in the Order filed on

September 4, 2003 and dismisses the instant motion on that

ground.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00581-REC Document 2 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2