Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01066/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01066-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PEDRO ROSALES-MARTINEZ,

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 13-1066-TUC-CKJ

 CR 06-1449-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside by Person in Federal

Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). A response and reply have been filed.

Procedural History

On August 23, 2006, Pedro Rosales-Martinez ("Rosales-Martinez") was indicted on

one count of Attempted Re-Entry after Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, enhanced

by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), in CR 06-1449. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on April 17,

2007. This Court found Rosales-Martinez guilty.

After imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)

based on Rosales-Matinez' conviction for attempted second-degree burglary in violation of

A.R.S. § 13-1507, on October 23, 2007, this Court sentenced Rosales-Martinez to a term of

sixty-five (65) months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be followed by a thirty-six

(36) month term of supervised release. An appeal was filed.

Case 4:13-cv-01066-CKJ Document 7 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 5
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 - 2 -

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on December 21, 2011. The

court determined Rosales-Martinez' Arizona conviction for attempted second-degree burglary

is not categorically a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). That court

further determined that the documents considered by this Court under the modified

categorical approach "do not establish that Rosales-Martinez formed the intent to commit the

burglary before entering the structure, or that his entry was unlawful or unprivileged, or that

he burgled an immovable structure." Reply, Ex. 1 (Doc. 6), pp. 2-3. The matter was vacated

and remanded. On April 9, 2012, at the government's request, the appellate court amended

its December 21, 2011, Memorandum to replace "vacated and remand" with "affirmed." The

mandate was issued on January 24, 2013.

After the Memorandum had been amended to reflect the matter was affirmed, on

January 30, 2013, this Court ordered that Rosales-Martinez "and/or his attorney may apply

to this Court to vacate his sentence and resentence him consistent with the decision of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if [Rosales-Martinez] is available for resentencing." Doc. 73.

On April 19, 2013, this Court set this matter for a re-sentencing hearing and directed counsel

for the government to coordinate with defense counsel to parole Rosales-Martinez into the

United States for his re-sentencing. On September 11, 2013, Rosales-Martinez was resentenced to a term of fifteen (15) months, with credit for time served, in the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons. No appeal was filed.

On September 5, 2013, prior to the re-sentencing, Rosales-Martinez filed a Motion

to Vacate and Set Aside by Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A

response and a reply have been filed.

Response by the Government

The government has filed a response that only includes affirmative defenses. The

government requests that, if the affirmative defenses are denied, it be allowed to file a

supplemental answer. The Court finds it appropriate to consider the affirmative defenses.

Case 4:13-cv-01066-CKJ Document 7 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 5
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 - 3 -

Timeliness of § 2255 Motion

The government argues Rosales-Martinez' § 2255 motion is premature because the

Ninth Circuit has reasoned that where the appellate court either partially or wholly reverses

a conviction or sentence, or both, and expressly remands to the district court, “[u]ntil the

district court enters an amended judgment of conviction [on remand], [a petitioner's] § 2255

motion is in fact premature, rather than untimely” because the district court may not “review

a section 2255 motion until the direct appeal is resolved.” United States v. LaFromboise, 427

F.3d 680, 683–84 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

Rosales-Martinez, however, argues this case does not present a situation where the

appellate court either partially or wholly reversed his conviction or sentence. Rather, at the

government's urging, the appellate court amended its December 21, 2011, Memorandum to

replace the words “vacated and remanded” with “affirmed.” The Court agrees with RosalesMartinez that the factual posture discussed in LaFromboise is not present in this case. Here,

the appellate court did not reverse Rosales-Martinez’ conviction or sentence and this Court

is only now reviewing the § 2255 Motion – after the direct appeal has been resolved. 

Moreover, even if the appeal were still pending, a consideration of whether interests

of judicial economy warrant refraining from resolving this § 2255 Motion would weigh in

favor of resolving the § 2255 Motion. The Court considers that the § 2255 Motion only

challenges the conviction rather than the sentence. In other words, there is no overlap of the

issue presented on appeal. See United States v. Deeb, 944 F.2d 545 (9th Cir. 1991)

(consideration of whether a §2255 motion raises the same issues as raised in appeal in

determining whether § 2255 motion should be dismissed); United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d

1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court should entertain § 2255 motion while appeal is pending

only in extraordinary circumstances given potential conflict with the appeal). The Court also

considers the circumstances of this case are sufficiently extraordinary, as alleged by RosalesMartinez, to warrant resolving the § 2255 Motion. See United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565,

572 (9th Cir. 1981). Specifically, Rosales-Martinez asserts that because (1) the Ninth Circuit

Case 4:13-cv-01066-CKJ Document 7 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 5
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 - 4 -

has held his Arizona conviction for attempted second-degree burglary did not qualify as a

burglary under the federal generic definition and (2) this conviction was the sole “basis for

the June 14, 2006 removal (and its underlying March 16, 2006 Order of removal) that was

charged in the indictment to prove that required element of illegal reentry[,]” Motion (Doc.

1), p. 4, Rosales-Martinez is factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.

The Court finds the § 2255 Motion is not premature.

Custody Status of Rosales-Martinez

The government argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the § 2255 Motion

because Rosales-Martinez would not have been, was not, and is no longer in custody even

if the § 2255 motion had been properly filed. 

The determination of whether a § 2255 movant is in custody is made at the time of the

filing of the motion. United States v. Johnson, 557 F.Supp.2d 1066 (N.D.Cal. 2008). At the

time Rosales-Martinez filed his § 2255 Motion, he was subject to a supervised release term

and thus was in "custody." Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3 758 (9th Cir. 2002); see

also 176 A.L.R.Fed. 189. The Court finds it has jurisdiction over this matter.

Writ of Coram Nobis

Rosales-Martinez also contests the government's affirmative defenses by asserting that

the Court could consider the claims and grant relief by treating the § 2255 Motion as a

petition for writ of coram nobis. As the Court has determined Rosales-Martinez' § 2255

Motion is not premature and this Court has jurisdiction over the matter, the Court declines

to address this argument.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The government's request to dismiss the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside by

Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.

Case 4:13-cv-01066-CKJ Document 7 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 5
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 - 5 -

2. The government's request to file a supplemental answer is GRANTED.

3. The government shall file any supplemental answer on or before April 11,

2014.

4. Rosales-Martinez shall file any supplemental reply on or before May 16, 2014.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-01066-CKJ Document 7 Filed 02/07/14 Page 5 of 5