Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20160726_0001268.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 09:47:57
Document Index: 168053660

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent Civil No. PJM 14-3377
PETER J. MESSITTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Danilo Aldublin-Robleto, pro se, has filed a “Motion/Petition of Review of Order of Agency Board of Commission Office, ” construed by the Court as a Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a “Supplement to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ” seeking to set aside his convictions. ECF Nos. 43, 45 and 51. For the reasons that follow, the Court these Motions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
On March 22, 2010, Aldublin-Robleto appealed the Judgment. ECF No. 31. On January 5, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Court’s Judgment. ECF No. 37. Its mandate took effect on January 27, 2011. ECF No. 38.
On November 7, 2012, while still in custody, Aldublin-Robleto filed a civil lawsuit against the Federal Correctional Complex at Butner (FCC Butner) and the Federal Medical Center at Butner (FMC Butner) in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Danilo Aldublin-Robleto v. FMC Butner, No. 5:12-cr-3226-D (E.D. N.C. Nov. 11, 2012). On February 4, 2013, United States District Judge James C. Dever III dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.[1] See id.
On April 28, 2014, United States Probation filed a Petition on Violation of Supervised Release in this Court, alleging that Aldublin-Robleto violated the Court’s removal order when he reentered the United States on March 30, 2013.[2] ECF No. 39.
On October 24, 2014, while in custody for his Southern District of California conviction, Aldublin-Robleto filed the instant “Motion/Petition of Review of Order of Agency Board of Commission Office, ” appearing to challenge his custody and previous convictions. ECF No. 43. The Court construed the Petition as a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but was unable to discern the nature of Aldublin-Robleto’s claims. ECF No. 44. Accordingly, on October 31, 2014, the Court issued an order advising Aldublin-Robleto to complete and file a § 2255 packet. Id. On November 14, 2014, Aldublin-Robleto filed his “Supplement to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ” ECF No. 45, which he refiled on April 6, 2015, ECF No. 51.
To state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner must demonstrate one of the following: (1) that his or her sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence; (3) that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (4) that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “[U]nless a [§ 2255] claim alleges lack of jurisdiction or constitutional error, ” the petitioner must show that the defect alleged was “fundamental” and resulted in a “complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979).
Aldublin-Robleto’s pleadings do not implicate any of the above grounds for relief, nor do they plausibly allege a “fundamental” error with respect to his District of Maryland conviction and sentence which has resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.” Instead, Aldublin-Robleto’s arguments mostly relate to his Southern District of California conviction and his Eastern District of North Carolina civil case. Moreover, in the form the Court provided to Robleto for his Supplement to his Motion to Vacate, Aldublin-Robleto essentially disregards the framework of the form and uses it as a vehicle to ask for information regarding his civil Eastern District of North Carolina case. Aldublin-Robleto’s filings have little, if any, reference to his case in this Court, and they certainly do not raise a cognizable claim for collaterally attacking his 2010 District of Maryland conviction and sentence.[4]
The Court therefore dismisses with prejudice Aldublin-Robleto’s “Motion/Petition of Review of Order of Agency Board of Commission Office, ” ECF No. 43, construed by the Court as a Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and his “Supplement to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ...