Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cr-00716/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cr-00716-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon Reynoso
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON REYNOSO,

Movant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-02060 CW

 CR 06-00716 CW

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

REGARDING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

§ 2255 MOTION OUT

OF TIME

Movant has filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s January 12,

2010 Order Denying Motion for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion

Out-Of-Time. 

Movant’s right to appeal the Court’s denial of this motion is

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which states, 

(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability, an appeal may not

be taken to the court of appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a State court;

or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under

section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue

under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under

Case 4:06-cr-00716-CW Document 93 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy the showing required by

paragraph (2).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(3). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the

phrase “circuit justice or judge” to include district court judges. 

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir 1997). 

Although the January 12, 2010 Order did not address the

substance of Movant’s § 2255 motion, it is a final order in a

proceeding under section 2255 and, as such, § 2253(c)(1)(B) applies

and a certificate of appealability is required to challenge it. 

Because Movant’s constitutional claims were not addressed in the

Order, the Court adopts the standard explicated in Eltayib v.

United States, 294 F.3d 397, 400 (2nd Cir. 2002), for an appeal in

a § 2255 proceeding of an order that does not address

constitutional claims. For instance, Eltayib addressed a motion,

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), to reopen the

time to appeal a § 2255 motion. Id. at 398. Eltayib held that, to

obtain a certificate of appealability for such a motion, a movant

must show

(1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court abused its discretion in

denying the Rule 4(a)(6) motion; and (2)(a) in a case

where a habeas petition was denied on its merits, that

jurists of reason would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong or (b) in a case where a habeas petition was denied

on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying

constitutional claims, that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of

the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling.

Id.; see also Patrick v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 2d 206, 211

(D. Mass. 2004) (applying Eltayib standard for certificate of

Case 4:06-cr-00716-CW Document 93 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

appealability regarding order denying motion for free trial

transcripts in § 2255 case). 

Movant urges that denial of his motion was an abuse of

discretion because (1) the Court ignored extraordinary

circumstances and the fact that his attorney “abandoned” him as

reasons for the late-filed motion; (2) the Court failed to permit

an amendment to his reply to allow him to argue his substantive

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) Ninth Circuit

precedent and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(AEDPA) present insurmountable and impermissible obstacles for

application of equitable tolling; (4) it is unreasonable to require

a movant to have knowledge of the one-year statute of limitations

for filing a § 2255 motion.

Movant’s first argument fails because, in the January 12, 2010

Order, the Court considered the circumstances he put forward to

explain why his motion was filed late, including abandonment by his

attorney. See January 12, 2010 Order at 3 n.3. Movant’s second

argument appears to be premised on the fact that, in the Court’s

June 24, 2009 Order On Movant’s Motion for Filing Out of Time, it

suggested that he file a brief addressing both equitable tolling

and his substantive claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

However, in his brief and his reply, Movant only addressed

equitable tolling. Now, Movant appears to argue that the Court

should have sua sponte granted leave to amend his reply so that he

could argue his ineffectiveness claim. Movant submits no authority

that requires a court to sua sponte allow a party to file an

amended reply. Furthermore, it would have been futile for him to

Case 4:06-cr-00716-CW Document 93 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

amend his reply subsequent to the Court’s denial of his motion to

file his § 2255 motion out-of-time. Movant’s third and fourth

arguments challenge Ninth Circuit precedent and AEDPA’s statute of

limitations for filing § 2255 motions, which Movant did not include

in his brief regarding equitable tolling. There can be no abuse of

discretion in failing to consider arguments Movant did not raise in

his brief. 

Because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether

the Court abused its discretion in denying Movant’s motion to file

his § 2255 motion out-of-time, the request for a certificate of

appealability is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cr-00716-CW Document 93 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RAMON REYNOSO,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CR06-00716 CW 

C 09-02060 CW

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on May 6, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Ramon Reynosa

C/O Cornell, Inc.

205 MacArthur Blvd.

Oakland, CA 94610

Ramon Reynosa

Federal Prison Camp

3705 West Farm Road

Lompoc, CA 93436

Dated: May 6, 2010

Richard W. Winking, Clerk

By: Ronnie Hersler, Adm Law Clerk

Case 4:06-cr-00716-CW Document 93 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 5