Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01364/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01364-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Schultz
Respondent
Ernest Trevino
Petitioner

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST TREVINO, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

WARDEN PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1364 OWW/TAG HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT 

On October 28, 2005, Petitioner Ernest Trevino, a federal

prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On April 16, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Section 2241 petition be dismissed. No

objections to the recommendation have been filed. 

The Court concurs with the recommendation for the reasons

set forth below.

Petitioner was convicted by jury in No. CR-F-89-150 TJM,

United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 7
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

California, Sacramento Division, of conspiracy to manufacture and

distribute methamphetamine and aiding abetting the manufacture of

methamphetamine. Petitioner was sentenced on September 27, 1990

to 375 months incarceration. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Ninth Circuit on

the ground, inter alia, of insufficiency of the evidence. The

Ninth Circuit affirmed Petitioner’s conviction, United States v.

Grohman, 1991 WL 268693 (9 Cir.1991), holding in pertinent th

part:

On October 3, 1988, agents from federal and

state law enforcement agencies found and

searched, pursuant to a search warrant, the

largest methamphetamine laboratory ever

discovered in Sacramento. At the laboratory

located on Hedge Avenue, they found two

pounds of methamphetamine, the chemical [sic]

to manufacture more, and evidence linking

Grohman and Trevino to the lab operation. 

Laboratory glassware at the site had

Grohman’s fingerprints on it.

Trevino’s involvement was further established

by his purchases of methamphetamine precursor

chemicals from a police informant. There was

also evidence linking him to the delivery of

the chemicals to the Hedge Avenue lab, as

several of the containers were marked before

sale to him and then identified at the lab. 

Officers searched Trevino’s residence in

Richmond and found, among other things, an

address book which contained the police

informer’s beeper number and the phone number

of Jerry Andrews, identified as the head of

the Hedge Avenue laboratory.

Additional investigators executed a search

warrant at Grohman’s residence in Sacramento,

which Grohman rented from Andrews. During

the search, agents found methamphetamine in

several places. They also found an Ohaus

triple beam scale with several glassine

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 7
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

baggies, a box with several pieces of lab

glassware, and a narcotics ledger in

Grohman’s handwriting. He admitted that he

used and sold methamphetamine. The detached

barn at Grohman’s residence smelled like

methamphetamine or its precursors. There

were many similarities- things consistent

with the production of methamphetaminebetween the barn and the Hedge Avenue

laboratory.

...

IV. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support

Trevino’s Conviction

Trevino’s argument that there was not

sufficient evidence to support his conviction

lacks merit. The evidence establishes that

Trevino made several trips to Los Angeles to

pick up phenylacetic acid (PAA), a precursor

chemical used in manufacturing

methamphetamine. Several barrels of PAA

seized from the lab on October 3 were

identified as having been picked up by

Trevino on October 1, 1988 in Los Angeles. 

It was also established that the barrels of

PAA found at the laboratory on October 3 were

barrels which had been delivered to Trevino

on August 9.

Trevino had PAA stored in cardboard barrels

and methylamine in five-gallon plastic

containers factory marked ‘Kerosene’ in a

storage locker. Such chemicals were stored

in the same way in the lab seized on October

3.

Furthermore, witnesses observed the October 2

transfer of barrels of PAA by Trevino and

others to individuals who took them to the

home of another indicted conspirator, Fred

Montoya, and then to the Hedge Avenue lab

site.

That his name and phone number were found on

index cards in Montoya’s home further linked

Trevino to the conspiracy. Phone records

showed long distance calls between Montoya’s

and Trevino’s numbers and Trevino’s number

and Jerry Andrews’ number between May 4, 1988

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Judicial notice is taken of the dockets of the District Court 1

and the Ninth Circuit. A court is permitted to take judicial

notice of court records in another case, including court records

available to the public through the PACER system via the internet.

See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n. 1 (9 Cir.2004); th

Jacobsen v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F.Supp.2d 1198, 1207

(C.D.Cal.2004).

4

and October 15, 1988. Finally, business

cards containing slang terms used in the

methamphetamine trade were found at Trevino’s

residence; these cards implicate him in the

business of illegal drug production.

Given the evidence, the jury could reasonably

conclude that Trevino was involved in the

conspiracy. The jury could infer from the

evidence that Trevino was supplying the lab

with precursor chemicals. The evidence was

sufficient to show his agreement to assist in

the manufacture and distribution of

methamphetamine. It is also sufficient

evidence of aiding and abetting the

manufacture of methamphetamine. The

transport and delivery of the precursor

chemicals satisfies the overt act

requirement, and intent may be inferred from

Trevino’s actions.

Since the affirmance of his conviction, Petitioner has filed

three motions to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The first 1

was filed on August 24, 1992 and denied by Order filed on

September 12, 1997. A certificate of appealability was denied by

the District Court and the Ninth Circuit (Nos. CV-F-92-1394; CRF-89-150). The second was filed on January 28, 2000 and

transferred to the Ninth Circuit as a second or successive

Section 2255 motion by Order filed on February 8, 2000. The

Ninth Circuit declined to certify the second or successive motion

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

(Nos. CV-F-00-195; CR-F-89-150). The third was filed on October

6, 2004 and transferred to the Ninth Circuit as a second or

successive Section 2255 motion by Order filed on October 21,

2004. The Ninth Circuit declined to certify the second or

successive motion. (Nos. CV-F-04-2104; CR-F-89-150).

In his Section 2241 petition, Petitioner claims that “postconviction interpretation of statute has precluded Petitioner’s

convictions” and that Petitioner “falls under ‘savings clause’ of

Section 2255.” 

Petitioner’s contention that a post-conviction

interpretation of a statute precludes his convictions of

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and

aiding abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine is based on a

misreading of United States v. Valdez-Santos, 370 F.Supp.2d 1051

(E.D.Cal.2005), rev’d, 457 F.3d 1044 (9 Cir.2006). th

In Valdez-Santos, the District Court made two rulings. 

First, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for a

directed verdict on the count charging defendant with conspiracy

to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. The grant of the

motion for directed verdict did not involve any interpretation of

a statute but, rather, involved the District Court’s view of the

sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict of

conviction. 370 F.Supp.2d at 1053-1054. Second, the District

Court granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial and transfer

to the Central District of California with regard to the charge

of possession and distribution of a listed chemical,

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 5 of 7
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

The United States appealed only the ruling granting the 2

motion for new trial and transfer of venue in Valdez-Santos. As

noted, the Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling.

6

pseudoephedrine, in both Sacramento and Los Angeles counties,

with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine. The District Court ruled that venue of the

possession count was proper only in the Central District of

California. In so ruling, the District Court relied in part of

its interpretation of the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2, and venue statute for multi-district crimes, 18 U.S.C. §

3237(a). 370 F.Supp.2d at 1055. 

2

Because no issue of multi-district venue is at issue,

Petitioner’s basic premise that he is entitled to proceed

pursuant to Section 2241 because of the statutory interpretation

set forth in Valdez-Santos is without merit. Petitioner is

conflating Valdez-Santo’s analysis of the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction with the analysis

of proper venue for the possession charge in an attempt to come

with the “savings clause” of Section 2255 that allows a

petitioner to proceed under Section 2241. 

Petitioner is not entitled to proceed under Section 2241

pursuant to the “savings clause” of Section 2255. As explained

in Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898 (9 Cir.2006), cert. th

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1896 (2007):

[A] § 2241 petition is available under the

‘escape hatch’ of § 2255 when a petitioner

(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and

(2) has not had an ‘unobstructed procedural

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

shot’ at presenting that claim.

Petitioner cannot make a claim of “actual innocence” because

the Ninth Circuit ruled on direct appeal that the evidence

presented to the jury was sufficient to sustain his convictions. 

Nothing in Valdez-Santos can change that conclusion. Moreover,

Petitioner cannot demonstrate that he has not had an unobstructed

procedural shot at presenting his claim because the claim was

presented on direct appeal and rejected.

 CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above,

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT for

Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 06/08/07 Page 7 of 7