Source: http://id.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171114_0000572.DID.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 21:04:07
Document Index: 530315543

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2253']

FindACase™ | United States v. Estrada-Jasso
Pending before the Court is Doroteo Estrada-Jasso's (“Estrada”) Motion Requesting Relief From an Unjust Sentence Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), see Crim. Dkt. 170, [1] which the Court will construe as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Having reviewed the motion and the record in this case and the underlying criminal case, the Court will dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
On December 8, 2005, Estrada was charged with conspiracy to possess/distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Estrada was also charged with possession with intent to distribute or distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
Estrada pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count, and the government agreed to dismiss the possession count. See Cr. Dkt. 92 (Plea Agreement). During the sentencing hearing, and in his briefing filed before the hearing, defense counsel asked the Court to impose a 120-month sentence. See Cr. Dkt. 112. Counsel argued that such a sentence was warranted given Estrada's age (46 at the time of sentencing); his age at the onset of criminal history (37, with his first felony at 44); and the sentences received by his co-defendants.
The Court was not persuaded and imposed a 360-month sentence. During the sentencing hearing, the Court explained that it was troubled by the amount of methamphetamine involved, observing that “the defendant here distributed almost 20 kilograms of methamphetamine, by my calculation.” Transcript, Crim. Dkt. 135, at 110. The Court also observed that although Estrada expressed remorse for what had happened to him, he did not seem to express concern about the “tens, if not hundreds or perhaps even thousands of lives that were destroyed through the methamphetamine that he distributed.” Id. at 112. For these and other reasons, the Court rejected defense counsel's argument for a lesser sentence.
Estrada appealed his sentence, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal determining that Estrada had waived his right to appeal. See Crim. Dkts. 117, 118, 140. Estrada later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with this Court. Civ. Dkt. 1. In his § 2255 motion, Estrada argued his plea was coerced and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at both the trial and appellate level. In June 2010, the Court dismissed the § 2255 motion, explaining that Estrada's claims were either “rebutted by the record” or were “vague and conclusory.” Civ. Dkt. 10, at 19-20.
In May 2017, nearly seven years after the Court dismissed his § 2255 motion, Estrada filed this motion, asking the Court for relief from his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The central thrust of Estrada's motion is that his lengthy sentence - 360 months - is unjust because at his age, he will likely remain in prison until he dies.
Estrada has labeled his motion as one brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). But it does not matter how the pleading is labeled. Postconviction law is complex, and few prisoners understand it. So the substance of a motion governs, not the label. See generally United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (9thCir. 2011).
Here, the substance of Estrada's motion reveals that he is challenging the legality of his detention - not some defect in the integrity of the prior habeas proceedings. In other words, Estrada is again seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See generally Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a motion.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Federal prisoners claiming the right to be released on the grounds that their sentence violates the Constitution or laws of the United States may file a motion under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2255. &ldquo;As a general rule, &sect; 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of detention.&rdquo; Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2008). If the district court denies the relief sought in the § 2255 motion, the prisoner may not appeal that denial without first obtaining a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). ...