Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-gygi-1
Timestamp: 2020-08-07 18:29:57
Document Index: 197826640

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 1958', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2255', '§ 2253']

United States v. Gygi, Case No. 6:15-cr-00305-AA | Casetext Search + Citator
Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA JEAN GYGI, Defendant.
Case No. 6:15-cr-00305-AA (D. Or. Jul. 9, 2019)
Case No. 6:15-cr-00305-AA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA JEAN GYGI, Defendant.
Petitioner Pamela Jean Gygi brings this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 pro se. The "Standing Due Notice" (doc. 59), which this Court has construed as a § 2255 petition, is DENIED for the following reasons.
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.
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).
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)(1)(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 . . . 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.
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).