Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_00-cr-01222/USCOURTS-azd-3_00-cr-01222-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan Ray Begay
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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

The defendant’s original § 2255 motion was dismissed as time-barred

on March 7, 2011 in CV 10-08221-PCT-PGR, and the Ninth Circuit, in No. 12-15872,

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Ivan Ray Begay,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-00-01222-PCT-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is the defendant’s Motion to Receive Notification of

Right to Appeal Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(J)(1)(B) (Doc. 84), wherein he

requests that he be re-sentenced because the Court failed to advise him in detail of

his right to appeal his sentence at the time he was sentenced on September 17,

2001. 

The Court finds that the motion should be denied for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because the petitioner is in effect seeking to file a successive motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without first obtaining the permission of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.1 See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.

Case 3:00-cr-01222-PGR Document 85 Filed 06/19/15 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

dismissed his appeal of the judgment of dismissal on August 27 2012 when it denied

the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

- 2 -

1998) (Court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a

successive § 2255 motion because the movant had failed to request a certification

from the appellate court prior to filing a successive § 2255 motion in the district

court.)

The Court notes that even if it had jurisdiction over this motion, the Court

would deny it as meritless because any failure on the Court’s part to advise the

defendant of his right to appeal his sentence was harmless error because the

defendant, through counsel, in fact filed a notice of appeal regarding his sentence

the day after he was sentenced and the Ninth Circuit, after considering the merits of

that appeal in No. 01-10645, affirmed the sentence this Court imposed upon him.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Receive Notification of Right

to Appeal Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(J)(1)(B) (Doc. 84) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2015.

Case 3:00-cr-01222-PGR Document 85 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2