Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:95-cr-5029-LC-GRJ

ELIAS RAYAS MEJIA,

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 319, Defendant’s motion to vacate under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant is serving a 240-month sentence following his 1996 jurytrial convictions for conspiracy, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and

money laundering. Defendant is presently incarcerated at Big Springs Correctional

Institution, Texas. Defendant previously sought relief under § 2255; his motion was

denied as time-barred and the Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. 

Doc. 303. In the instant motion, Defendant asks the Court to “recorrect” his sentence. 

Defendant states that his current release date is January 26, 2013. Defendant’s BOP

Sentence Monitoring Computation Data, attached to the motion, reflects that

Defendant’s “Six Month/10% Date” would be July 26, 2012. Although Defendant’s

claims are somewhat difficult to construe, he appears to suggest that the Court should

make the earlier date his release date by giving Defendant credit for good conduct. 

See Doc. 319.

To the extent that Defendant seeks relief under § 2255, he is barred from

seeking such relief again in this Court absent prior certification from the Eleventh

Case 5:95-cr-05029-LC-GRJ Document 320 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Circuit. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3); see Villanueva v. United States, 346 F.3d

55 (2 Cir. 2003) (habeas or § 2255 petition that is properly dismissed as time-barred nd

constitutes an adjudication on the merits for successive purposes). There is nothing in

the record that reflects that Defendant has been granted leave by the Eleventh Circuit

to file a successive motion to vacate, and thus this Court lacks the requisite

authorization to entertain a second § 2255 motion. 

To the extent that Defendant challenges the BOP’s computation of his release

date, such claims must be raised by way of a 28 U.S.C § 2241 habeas corpus petition,

after Defendant has exhausted all BOP administrative remedies concerning his

sentence-calculation claim. Such a petition would be filed in the federal district where

Defendant is incarcerated. Because Defendant is not incarcerated in this district, the

Court does not recommend that the instant motion be re-filed as a habeas corpus

petition. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s

motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 319, be DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS this 24 day of May 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of

this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within

14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 5:95-cr-05029-LC-GRJ Document 320 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 2