Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abraham Betancourt
Petitioner
United States of America
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM BETANCOURT, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-024 REC

(No. CR-F-93-5046 MDC) 

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR RESPONDENT

On January 9, 2006, petitioner Abraham Betancourt filed a

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255.

Petitioner was convicted by jury trial on October 7, 1993 

of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance,

manufacturing a controlled substance and possession of a

controlled substance with intent to distribute. Petitioner was

sentenced on February 28, 1994 to 324 months imprisonment. 

Petitioner did not file an appeal. On April 15, 1997, petitioner

filed a motion pursuant to Section 2255. By Order filed on

Case 1:06-cv-00024-OWW Document 2 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner argues that the court should hold the instant 1

motion in abeyance pending resolution by the Supreme Court of

Washington v. Recuenco, No. 05-83. The court denies this request.

The issue before the Supreme Court in Recuenco does not address the

applicability of Booker to cases on collateral review.

2

October 21, 1997, petitioner’s motion was dismissed. Petitioner

did not appeal the dismissal of this Section 2255 motion. On

January 31, 2005, petitioner filed another Section 2255 motion. 

This motion was denied by Order filed on February 4, 2005. 

Petitioner did not appeal the denial of this motion.

In his third motion for relief under Section 2255,

petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief because of the

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005).

Petitioner, citing McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991),

argues that the instant motion should not be construed by this

court as a “second or successive” motion because his challenge to

his sentence under Booker is a new issue that did not exist and

could not have been raised at the time he filed his initial

Section 2255 motion.

It is not necessary for the court to resolve this issue. 

Even assuming that petitioner’s position is correct, petitioner

would not be entitled to relief. Booker is not retroactive to

cases on collateral review. United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119

(9 Cir. 2005). th 1

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Abraham Betancourt’s motion to vacate, set

Case 1:06-cv-00024-OWW Document 2 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00024-OWW Document 2 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3