Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01964/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01964-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cr3515-LAB-1 and

16cv1964-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER 28

U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

FELICIANO RUANO YANEZ,

Defendant.

After pleading guilty to importation of methamphetamine, Defendant-Petitioner

Feliciano Ruano Yanez was sentenced on April 8, 2014 to 138 months’ imprisonment. 

(Docket no. 36.) He brought no direct appeal. On May 25, 2016 he filed a motion under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.C. Amendment 782. The

Court denied that motion without prejudice to its being renewed pursuant to this District’s

General Order #642. (Docket no. 39.) It was not renewed, however, and that denial is now

final.1

On August 1, 2016, Ruano Yanez filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This

motion seeks relief under Amendment 794, which amended U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. Specifically

he asks that although at sentencing he was denied the benefit of minor role, he be given that

Ruano Yanez’s § 2255 motion incorrectly says this motion is still pending. (See 1

Docket no. 40, at 4, 11.)

- 1 - 13cr3515 and 16cv1964

Case 3:16-cv-01964-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/11/16 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

27

28

benefit retroactively and resentenced. Amendment 794 was issued on November 1, 2015.

See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 521 (9 Cir. 2016). This occurred well th

after Ruano Yanez’s conviction was final.

In general, the court is required to use the guidelines manual in effect on the date a

Defendant is sentenced. See Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 2332 (2012);

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a) (requiring use of “the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the

defendant is sentenced”). The U.S. Sentencing Commission did not make Amendment 794

retroactive to all cases. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (2015). But the Ninth Circuit has held it

retroactive on direct review. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523.

Although Ruano Yanez cited § 2255, he is not entitled to relief under this statute. He

is not arguing that his sentence was illegal when imposed, that it was imposed in violation

of U.S. law, or any of the other reasons listed in § 2255(a). Instead, he is arguing that he

ought to be given retroactive benefit of a clarifying amendment. This type of claim must be

brought as motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, not a § 2255 motion. See Hamilton v. United

States, 67 F.3d 761, 763 (9 Cir. 1995) (holding that a § 2255 claim can be based only on th

a claim of lack of jurisdiction, constitutional error, an error resulting in “ a complete

miscarriage of justice,” or “a proceeding inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair

procedure”) (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783–84 (1979)).

Even if Ruano Yanez’s motion were properly brought under § 2255, it would be

untimely. Such a motion must be brought within one year of certain listed events. See

§ 2255(f). The latest of those events in this case was the date on which his judgment of

conviction became final, which was in 2014. 

If the Court were to construe this as a § 3582 motion, Ruano Yanez’s claim fails

because Amendment 794 is not retroactive for purposes of a § 3582 motion. See QuinteroLeyva, 823 F.3d at 523 (holding that Amendment 794 was a “clarifying amendment”; United

States v. Stokes, 300 Fed. Appx. 507, 508 (9 Cir. 2008) (holding that a “clarifying th

amendment” does not apply retroactively in a motion for reduction of a sentence under

§ 3582).

- 2 - 13cr3515 and 16cv1964

Case 3:16-cv-01964-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/11/16 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

27

28

Ruano Yanez also mentions ineffective assistance of counsel, but provides no facts

and admits he does not know whether he has such a claim. (Docket no. 40 at 11.) 

The motion is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cr3515 and 16cv1964

Case 3:16-cv-01964-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 3