Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00883/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00883-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Arambulo-Sanchez
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Juan Arambulo-Sanchez, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-0883-PHX-SRB

 CR06-0381-PXH-SRB

ORDER

Defendant signed a plea agreement and pled guilty to Possessing a Firearm in

Connection with a Crime of Violence. He was sentenced within the plea agreement’s

stipulations to 72 months in prison on November 13, 2006. On May 7, 2008 he filed the

pending Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a

Person in Federal Custody raising four claims. The Government responded in opposition on

August 18, 2008 arguing that the motion was untimely because it was filed long after

expiration of the one-year statute of limitations established in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Alternatively, the Government argued that Defendant had validly waived his rights to

collaterally attack his conviction in his plea agreement. Defendant did not file a reply.

On February 26, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Defendant’s motion be denied as untimely or alternatively on the

merits. Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on March 9, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00883-SRB Document 8 Filed 03/30/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

In his objection, Defendant claims that the statute of limitations should be tolled and his

motion be considered timely because his lawyer failed to file a Notice of Appeal. Defendant

states “There is no question that a competent attorney would have done otherwise, and his

failure and incompetency was prejudicial and greatly affected the outcome of the period to

file.” Yet Defendant fails to explain how his counsel’s failure to follow his alleged

instruction to appeal within 10 days of the November 13, 2006 conviction prevented his

filing of the present motion until May of 2008. Neither in his motion nor in his objection has

Defendant demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control made it

impossible to file his motion within the statute of limitations. United States v. Battles, 362

F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendant’s motion will be denied as untimely. Even if

timely the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s claims are without merit.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Defendant’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00883-SRB Document 8 Filed 03/30/09 Page 2 of 2