Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100623_0008687.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 11:47:06
Document Index: 689926349

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

| Rith v. Rios
Rith v. Rios
MESA RITH, PETITIONER,v.HECTOR A. RIOS, JR., WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. He challenges his guilty plea and sentence in the United States District Court for the District of Utah for assault on a federal officer. He was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") to 96 months imprisonment.
Following his conviction, on August 26, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, which was denied on May 19, 2005.*fn2 Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appeal was denied.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 9, 2010. Petitioner argues that his prior conviction for possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun was not a "violent felony" under the ACCA. He contends that he is actually innocent of the ACCA sentencing designation because he has not suffered two prior violent felony or serious drug offenses.
In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his federal sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, rather than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 in the District of Utah, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in this Court.
Petitioner argues, however, that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective, because he had already filed a § 2255 motion by the time the Supreme Court decided Haste v. United States, 553 U.S. 1001 (2008), Chambers v. United States, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 687 (2009), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008). Therefore, he argues, he could not have filed a § 2255 challenge to the ACCA sentencing enhancement because those cases had not yet been decided. However, this does not render the remedy of § 2255 inadequate or ineffective.
Under the AEDPA, a prisoner may not bring a second or successive Section 2255 motion in district court unless "a panel of the appropriate court of appeals" certifies that the motion contains: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2255; see Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir.2008). Petitioner fails to meet either of these requirements. First, newly discovered evidence is not at issue in this case. Second, Petitioner does not cite to any cases, and the Court has found none, finding that the United States Supreme ...