IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PAMELA JEAN GYGI, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

Case No. 6:15-cr-00305-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Petitioner Pamela Jean Gygi brings this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 prose. The "Standing Due Notice" (doc. 59), which this Court has construed

as a § 2255 petition, is DENIED for the following reasons. 

BACKGROUND 

In January 2017, petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of use of interstate 

commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1958 and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of that 

murder-for-hire scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On May 3, 2017, this Court 

sentenced petitioner to 120 months imprisonment. A judgment of conviction was 

entered May 4, 2017. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of her criminal 

convictions. 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
On March 24, 2019, more than a year after the judgment was entered, 

petitioner filed a pro se motion titled "Standing Due Notice" that appears to be a 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner challenges her 

conviction on the grounds that this Court lacked jurisdiction over her. 

DISCUSSION 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a defendant may move to have her sentence vacated 

or corrected if it was "imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United 

States." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). But that motion must be filed within one year from the 

date on which a petitioner's conviction becomes final, unless an exception applies. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Here, no exceptions apply. Petitioner's claims are not delayed 

due to a government impediment, they are not based on a right newly recognized by 

the Supreme Court, and they are not newly discovered. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(£)(2)-(4). 

A defendant's judgment of conviction becomes final when the time for filing a 

notice of appeal expires, 14 days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(l)(A); United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the 

judgment was entered May 4, 2017. Since petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, 

the judgment became final on May 18, 2017. The one-year statute of limitations 

expired on May 18, 2018. Petitioner's March 24, 2019 filing was thus untimely, and 

her claim is time-barred. 

Further, in her plea agreement, petitioner waived appeal of "any aspect of her 

conviction and sentence including all post-conviction and habeas corpus motions," 

except for ineffective assistance of counsel. Plea Agreement (doc. 32) ,r 8. Here 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 
petitioner alleges lack of jurisdiction, not ineffective assistance of counsel. She thus 

waived her right to raise this claim. 

Finally, even if petitioner's claim were not time-barred or waived, it is without 

merit. Petitioner's claim appears to be based on sovereign citizen beliefs. See United 

States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 60405 (D. Md. 2005) (describing the sovereign 

citizen belief system); United States v. Neal, 776 F.3d 645, 657 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding 

that even though defendant's sovereign citizen beliefs were nonsensical, they did not 

indicate incompetence, citing Mitchell). 

Petitioner argues that the district court lacks jurisdiction because she 

committed the crime in Oregon, not "within Federal Territory." Petition at 3. But 

this Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1958, which has been held a valid 

exercise of the Commerce Clause. See United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475, 488-89 

(4th Cir. 2013) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) is constitutional); United States v. 

Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 691 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that telephone calls qualify as use 

of a facility of interstate commerce). Thus, regardless of petitioner's sovereign citizen 

beliefs, the Court has jurisdiction over her. 

A final order in a § 2255 proceeding may not be appealed unless a judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(B). A certificate of appealability 

may not issue unless "the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of 

a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 

(2000), the Supreme Court explained that a certificate of appealability under § 

2253(c) is warranted when a habeas prisoner makes "a demonstration that ... 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 
includes a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether ... the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Id. at 483-84 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

In this case, the Court concludes that petitioner has failed to make the required 

showing and so declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, petitioner's § 2255 petition (doc. 59) is 

DENIED. No evidentiary hearing is necessary because the allegations in petitioner's 

motion, when viewed against the record, do not give rise to a claim for relief. The 

Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability on the basis that petitioner has 

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Datedthis 9~ofJul22:u~ 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER