Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00576/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00576-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sky Gary Trammell
Petitioner
USA
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, )

) CR 04-50178 PHX SRB

v. ) CV 12-00576 PHX SRB MEA

) 

SKY GARY TRAMMELL, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

 Defendant/Movant. )

_________________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON:

On March 19, 2012, Mr. Sky Trammell (“Movant”), filed

a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On April 30, 2012, Respondent

filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Response”) (Doc.

4). Respondent contends the section 2255 petition must be

dismissed because it is an unauthorized second petition and

because it was not timely filed.

I Procedural History

On October 18, 2001, in the United States District

Court for the District of Oregon, Movant pled guilty to one

count of tax evasion, alleged to have occurred in 1994, and one

count of mail fraud, alleged to have occurred in 1999. See

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 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

27

28

1

On May 4, 2007, a Petition to Revoke Supervised

Release was issued alleging eight different

violations. [] Movant later admitted violating

Standard Condition #4 - “You shall answer

truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer

and follow the instructions of the probation

officer” - by providing copies of income tax

returns to the probation officer and falsely

claiming that he filed tax returns for the years

1996, 1997, 2000, 2001 and 2002; violating

Special Condition #8 by failing to file a tax

return by April 15, 2005; and violating Special

Condition #9, by refusing to cooperate with the

-2-

Docket No. 2:04 cr 50178 at Doc. 1. On May 20, 2002, Movant

was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay

restitution. Movant was also ordered to serve a term of 36

months supervised release upon his release from incarceration in

2004. See id. On December 15, 2004, Movant’s supervision was

transferred from Oregon to the District of Arizona. Movant’s

supervised release was to terminate in May of 2007. Id. 

On May 7, 2007, the government filed a petition seeking

to revoke Movant’s supervised release. Id. at Doc. 3. The

government alleged, inter alia, that Movant falsely informed his

probation officer that he had filed tax returns for the years

1995, 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Id. The government also

alleged Movant had failed to timely file a tax return for the

tax year 2005 and that Movant had failed to cooperated with the

Internal Revenue Service for the tax years 1993, 1994, 1995,

1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Id. 

At a hearing conducted September 5, 2007, Movant

admitted to violating three allegations as charged in the

Petition to Revoke filed May 7, 2007.1 Id., Doc. 26. The Court

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 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

27

28

IRS by failing to pay taxes, interests and

penalties in the amount of $2,697,274.70. [] He

did not appeal. However, he failed to surrender

for service of this four-month sentence and was

later convicted for the additional crime of

Failure to Surrender for Service of Sentence in

CR-09-026- PHX-SRB. On September 21, 2009, he was

sentenced to 12 months and a day of imprisonment

with 36 months of supervised release to follow.

(CR 09-00026-PHX-SRB)

-3-

found that there was a factual basis for the Movant’s admissions

and accepted his admissions. The Court then sentenced Movant to

a term of four months imprisonment to be followed by 32 months

of supervised release. Id., Doc. 27.

Movant did not take a direct appeal of his sentence for

violation of the terms of his probation and the sentence imposed

by the Court. Movant did not surrender to serve his term of

four months imprisonment. On November 27, 2007, a bench warrant

was issued for Movant’s arrest for failure to surrender. Id.,

Doc. 35 & Doc. 38. Movant was arrested pursuant to this warrant

on May 29, 2008. Id., Doc. 46.

On January 6, 2009, in United States District Court for

the District of Arizona docket number 2:09 cr 0026, Movant was

indicted on a single count of failing to surrender. On

September 21, 2009, Movant entered into a plea agreement

regarding this charge. See 2:09 cr 0026, Doc. 35. Movant was

ordered to serve a term of twelve months imprisonment followed

by three years of supervised release pursuant to this

conviction. Id., Doc. 34.

 Movant filed a section 2255 motion on May 20, 2009,

and he filed a slightly amended motion on May 21, 2009. See

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 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

27

28 -4-

2:09 cv 01085, Doc. 1 & Doc. 3. In these section 2255 motions,

Movant asserted he was entitled to relief because his conviction

was “obtained by a violation of the protection against double

jeopardy” and because his conviction was “obtained by use of

evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful, illegal, unethical,

immoral, unproved alleged crime”. Movant also maintained his

conviction was unconstitutional because of “False Jurisdiction”

and a “Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction”. The Court denied

relief and dismissed the action on January 26, 2010. Id., Doc.

12.

 On June 17, 2011, a second petition to revoke Movant’s

supervised release was issued, alleging that Movant traveled to

California without permission and that he failed to report

police contact related to an allegation that he was in

possession of credit cards belonging to a third party. See 2:09

cr 0026, Doc. 62. Movant admitted violating his supervised

release by failing to report his contact with police officers

while in California. On October 5, 2011, his supervised release

was revoked in both cause numbers, i.e., the 2004 and 2009

criminal cases, and he was sentenced to 10 months of

imprisonment on each case to run consecutively to one another.

Id., Doc. 78.

In the pending section 2255 motion Movant asserts he is

a victim of prosecutorial misconduct because he was prosecuted

for not filing tax returns. Movant contends he was notified by

the IRS in 2009 that he had indeed filed returns for the years

in question. However, in Movant’s traverse he admits he did not

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 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

27

28 -5-

file returns and says he has been sufficiently punished for his

mistakes. Movant asserts he was given permission to relocate to

California. Movant alleges the government erred in allowing his

supervised release in Arizona when he had economic and family

ties in California.

II Analysis

Section 2255 provides, inter alia:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to

a motion under this section. The limitation

period shall run from...the date on which the

judgment of conviction becomes final.... [or]

the date on which the right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if

that right has been newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review...

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006 & Supp. 2011).

The section 2255 motion is timely only insofar as it

seek relief from the 2011 revocation of supervised release.

Movant has not alleged a basis for relief from this decision.

Movant previously challenged his 2009 conviction via a

section 2255 action. The pending motion is, therefore, a second

or successive motion, which requires Movant to seek

certification from the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals.

See id. § 2255(h). Because Movant has not done so, the Court is

without jurisdiction to consider the second motion. See United

States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2011). 

III Conclusion

Movant’s section 2255 action does not state a claim for

relief from the 2011 revocation of supervised release, the only

Court action from which a section 2255 action may be timely

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 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

27

28 -6-

considered. Additionally, to the extent Movant challenges the

Court’s 2009 conviction, because Movant previously adjudicated

a section 2255 action regarding this conviction, the Court is

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Movant’s claims.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Trammell’s Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal

Custody be denied.

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. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to de novo appellate consideration of the issues. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc),

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 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

27

28 -7-

cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003). 

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of

fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 31st day of May, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00576-SRB Document 6 Filed 06/01/12 Page 7 of 7