Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cr-00054/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cr-00054-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanh Huu Lam
Defendant
USA
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CR. No. S-97-0054 WBS

v.

TANH HUU LAM, ORDER

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On September 15, 2004 defendant, a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a new Motion for Relief Under Rule

60(b). The United States filed an opposition to the motion, and

defendant’s reply was filed October 28, 2005.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 25, 1999, defendant entered a plea of guilty to

the charge arson resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

844(i). As part of the plea agreement, defendant reserved the

right to appeal two issues: (1) the denial of his motion to

dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act; and

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 412 Filed 11/30/05 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

(2) the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for

violation of his due process and double jeopardy rights. 

Although defendant raised both of those issues on direct appeal,

the Ninth Circuit affirmed his conviction on June 4, 2001. 

United States v. Lam, 251 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2001).

On October 22, 2002, defendant filed his first petition

for relief pursuant to §2255. In that petition, and in a

supplemental petition filed one week later, defendant raised ten

claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and the

alleged involuntariness of his guilty plea. In response, the

government moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the

defendant had waived his right to raise those claims. On March

6, 2003, this court granted the government’s motion and

dismissed Lam’s §2255 petition. Defendant appealed from that

order and, on December 19, 2003, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

Defendant’s motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied

on April 6, 2004.

On October 18, 2004, petitioner sought leave from the

Court of Appeals to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. 

On January 21, 2005, the Ninth Circuit denied that request. 

Meanwhile, on January 18, 2005, while defendant’s motion was

still pending in the Ninth Circuit, he filed with this court a

"Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea" pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and

a "Motion Requesting Judge to Voluntarily Disqualify." On May 2,

2005, this court entered an order dismissing that motion. In

that order, the court observed:

The filing of second or successive motions under

section 2255 is prohibited unless the petitioner

has obtained certification to do so from the Court

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 412 Filed 11/30/05 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

` of Appeals. Rule 60(b) may not be used circumvent

[this prohibition]. There is no colorable claim of

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect,

newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation,

or other misconduct of an adverse party here. The

instant motion is therefore barred . . . .

May 2, 2005 Order at 2.

In his present motion, in an apparent effort to cure

the observed defects in his previous motion, defendant seeks to

allege fraud committed by his attorney, the prosecuting

attorneys, and the court.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s present motion suffers from the same

infirmities as his last one, in that it is equivalent to a

successive motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Assuming his

allegations against the United States Attorney, his own attorney

and the court amount to allegations of “fraud,” they do not bear

any relation to his claims for relief. The allegedly

“fraudulent” conduct occurred in 1998 in connection with

defendant’s first trial, which resulted in a hung jury and

mistrial. His conviction and sentence resulted from his plea of

guilty entered after and independent of his earlier trial.

As explained in this court’s order of May 2, 2005,

because the grounds asserted in support of defendant’s present

motion are the same as those which were raised, or at least could

have been raised, in his earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

filed on October 22, 2002, the present motion is prohibited

unless the petitioner has obtained certification from the Court

of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d

661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998). Rule 60(b) may not be used to

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 412 Filed 11/30/05 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

circumvent the prohibitions of section 2244. See Thomas v.

Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for

Relief Under Rule 60(b), filed September 15, 2005, be, and the

same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: November 28, 2005

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 412 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 4