Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00894/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00894-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorenzo Elizondo
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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

1

 Unless otherwise indicated, the cited docket numbers refer to the civil case that was

opened upon the filing of the motion to vacate. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Lorenzo Elizondo, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-0894-PHX-DGC (ECV)

CR 05-0683-PHX-DGC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE:

Pending before the court is Movant's pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1).1

BACKGROUND

On December 19, 2005, Movant pleaded guilty to one count of Felon in Possession

of Explosive Material, a Class C Felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(i)(1) and 844(a)(1).

(Doc. 36 of CR 05-683-PHX-DGC). The District Court imposed a sentence of probation for

48 months. (Id.). On September 20, 2007, Movant’s probation was revoked and the Court

imposed a sentence of 18 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

Case 2:11-cv-00894-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/20/11 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

 Even though the filing date stamped on the petition is May 4, 2011, under the prison

mailbox rule a petition is deemed filed on the date the petition is delivered to prison

authorities for mailing. See Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).

Movant’s sworn declaration at the end of his motion asserts that he placed the motion in the

prison mailing system on May 2, 2011. (Doc. 1 at 10). The motion is therefore deemed filed

on that date. 

- 2 -

(Doc. 50 of CR 05-683-PHX-DGC). In December 2009, a petition to revoke Movant’s

supervised release was filed against him based on a conviction for aggravated robbery in

Maricopa County Superior Court, among other violations. (Doc. 53 of CR 05-683-PHXDGC). On April 8, 2010, the District Court revoked Movant’s supervised release and

imposed a sentence of 24 months, to be served consecutively to the Maricipa County

sentence. (Doc. 65 of CR 05-683-PHX-DGC). At the disposition hearing, the Court

informed Movant of his right to file a notice of appeal within 14 days. (Doc. 72 at 11 of CR

05-683-PHX-DGC). The criminal case docket, however, reflects that no notice of appeal

was filed. 

On May 2, 2011, Movant filed his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1).2

 The District Court

issued a screening order on June 22, 2011, in which it dismissed all of the claims in the

motion to vacate except Movant’s claim that his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal

despite his request that she do so. (Doc. 3 at 2). Respondent filed a Response in Opposition

to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Sentence on August 11, 2011. (Doc. 4).

Movant has not filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

Respondent contends in its response in opposition that the petition is untimely and

must therefore be denied. Respondent argues that Movant filed his petition more than one

year after the judgment of conviction became final. Alternatively, Respondent contends that

Movant’s claim is without merit because, as demonstrated by an affidavit from Movant’s

counsel, Movant never requested that she file a notice of appeal. 

Case 2:11-cv-00894-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/20/11 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 -

A federal prisoner's petition for relief under § 2255 is subject to a one year statute of

limitations that generally runs from "the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes

final." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The conviction becomes final for purposes of § 2255 upon the

expiration of the time to seek direct review. United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223

(9th Cir. 2001).

Here, the District Court’s order revoking Movant’s supervised release and sentencing

him to prison was filed on April 8, 2010. Movant’s conviction became “final” 14 days later

on April 22, 2010, when the time expired to seek direct review of the Court’s order. The

statute of limitations then ran for one year from April 23, 2010 to April 22, 2011. Movant’s

motion to vacate was filed on May 2, 2011, ten days after the statute of limitations expired.

As a result, the motion is untimely and is barred by the statute of limitations. 

Having failed to file a reply, Movant has not argued equitable tolling or any other

basis to excuse the untimely motion. Moreover, a section of the motion to vacate itself

provided Movant with an opportunity to explain why the statute of limitations does not bar

the motion where the conviction became final more than a year before the motion was filed.

Movant left that section blank, thus offering no explanation. The court will therefore

recommend that the motion to vacate be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in

Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc.1) be DENEID; and 

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

be DENIED because the dismissal of the motion to vacate is justified by a plain procedural

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Case 2:11-cv-00894-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/20/11 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 -

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 20th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00894-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/20/11 Page 4 of 4