Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00334/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Salas-Quiz
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JULIAN SALAS-QUIZ, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 03-0334-PHX-SMM

 CV 04-3072-PHX-SMM (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On December 30, 2004, Julian Salas-Quis, ("Movant"), presently confined in the

Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, New Mexico, filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Conviction and Sentence Due to Ineffective

Assistance of Counsel, construed by the District Court as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside

or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

("Motion") (Document # 26"). 

Ordinarily, a court must conduct a hearing on a motion unless it "and the files

and records of the case conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief ...."

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Motion, as well as the files and records, do conclusively

establish that Movant is not entitled to relief. See Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156,

1159 (9th Cir. 1989). Hence, no hearing is required to rule on the present Motion. 

Procedural History

On March 12, 2003, Movant was charged by Complaint with two counts of

illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). (Doc. #1)

On April 3, 2003, Movant was indicted on the same charges. (Doc. #7) On June 16,

2003, Movant entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement with the government,

Case 2:03-cr-00334-SMM Document 39 Filed 04/05/06 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

27

28 - 2 -

to Count Two of the Indictment, which charged that Movant was an illegal alien in

possession of a firearm. (Doc. #15) In his plea agreement, Movant waived his right to

appeal his sentence and conviction if he was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the plea

agreement. (Doc. #23) The plea agreement provided that the Sentencing Guidelines

were applicable. (Id.) 

Prior to sentencing, the Probation Officer issued a Pre-sentencing Investigative

Report which determined that Movant was subject to a Guideline cross-reference for

possession of a firearm in connection with possession with intent to distribute a

controlled substance. The Probation Officer applied the cross reference because the

Movant admitted that he owned 52 grams of methamphetamine found in his apartment

at the same time as the firearm which led to his federal charge was recovered. 

Accordingly, the court applied an adjusted offense level of 28. On September

15, 2003, Movant was sentenced to 57 months with credit for time served followed by

3 years of supervised release. (Doc. #24,25.) Defendant did not appeal his conviction

or sentence. Movant brought this Motion on December 30, 2004, and an amended

petition on February 25, 2005. Movant's Motion raises the following four grounds for

relief:

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Sentencing Hearings ;

2. Conviction Obtained by a Violation of the Protection Against Double

Jeopardy;

3. Defendant's Guilty Plea was not Knowingly, Voluntarily, and

Intelligently Entered; and

4. Denial of the Right of Appeal.

Respondents filed an answer to the Motion arguing that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

the Motion is untimely, having been filed more than fifteen months after his judgment

of conviction became final. 

Case 2:03-cr-00334-SMM Document 39 Filed 04/05/06 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

27

28 - 3 -

Discussion

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), a one

year period of limitations from the date on which the judgement of conviction becomes

final has been imposed on the filing of motions for collateral relief by prisoners in

federal custody. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

The one year period of limitations which Movant had to file his § 2255 motion

began to run upon the expiration of the time during which he could have sought review

of his conviction by direct appeal. U.S. v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001).

This means that the limitations period here began to run upon the expiration of the time

during which the defendant could have sought review by direct appeal. Schwartz, 274

F.3d at 1223. Because the defendant did not file a direct appeal, the limitations period

expired ten days after his conviction, or on September 25, 2003. Movant's Motion, filed

over a year later, on December 30, 2004, is untimely and subject to dismissal unless

relief in the form of equitable tolling is applicable in this case.

The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to

§ 2255 cases. United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). Equitable tolling

may be available even after the statute of limitations period has expired if

"extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a

petition on time." Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288

(9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 163

F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998)(en banc). The Ninth Circuit has noted that determinations of

"whether there are grounds for equitable tolling are highly fact dependent."

Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc). 

Equitable tolling is appropriate only if extraordinary circumstances beyond a

prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time, and is unavailable in

most cases. Miranda v. Castro 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Miles v.

Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) and Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288). The

Case 2:03-cr-00334-SMM Document 39 Filed 04/05/06 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

27

28 - 4 -

threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling under the AEDPA is very high.

Miranda, 292 F.3d at 1066 (quoting United States v. Marcello, 212 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th

Cir. 2000)). 

There are no apparent tolling circumstances in this case. Movant filed no reply

to Respondent's answer, however, Respondent's answer did not inform Movant that he

could present circumstances demonstrating equitable tolling. Petitioner has not, at this

time, sufficiently alleged that, due to circumstances beyond his control it was

impossible to file a petition on time. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that, absent further

demonstration of equitable tolling by the Petitioner, which he may include in

objections to this report, that the District Court reject Petitioner's equitable tolling

claim and dismiss the petition as untimely. 

Recommendation 

It is the recommendation of this Court that the Movant's Petition For a Writ of

Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Conviction and Sentence Due to Ineffective Assistance

of Counsel (Document # 26) be DENIED. 

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the limitations period should be tolled

pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling. 

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written

objections within 10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If

objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CR 03-00334-

TUC-SMM and CV 04-3072-PHX-SMM. 

DATED this 5th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:03-cr-00334-SMM Document 39 Filed 04/05/06 Page 4 of 4