Quiel v. USA

Filing 21

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation, (Doc. 17 ), is ACCEPTED and Movant's objections, (Doc. 18 ), are OVERRULED; accordingly, Movant's amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 7 ; CR Doc. 474) is denied and dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly; Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied; A Certi ficate of Appealability is denied, because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see Slack v.McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 48384 (2000); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's Motion to Compel Government to Produce Documents, (Doc. 19), is DENIED. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/24/17. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Quiel,
Petitioner,

10
11

USA,

CR-11-02385-PHX-JAT

v.

12

No. CV-16-01535-PHX-JAT (MHB)

13

ORDER
Respondent.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Movant’s amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

16

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 7.) The

17

Government has answered, (Doc. 11), and Movant has replied, (Doc. 14.) Magistrate

18

Judge Michelle H. Burns has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

19

recommending that Movant’s claims be denied and dismissed with prejudice, that a

20

Certificate of Appealability be denied, and that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

21

appeal be denied. (Doc. 17.) Movant objects to the R&R. (Doc. 18.)

22
23
24

Relatedly, pending before the Court is Movant’s Motion to Compel Government
to Produce Documents. (Doc. 19.) The Government opposes this request. (Doc. 20.)
I.

25

Background
Movant does not dispute the procedural background provided by the Magistrate

26

Judge.

27

subsequently decided appeal:

28

Therefore, this Court adopts that background, except regarding Movant’s

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On December 8, 2011, a grand jury indicted Movant Michael Quiel
with one count of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, two counts of
Willful Subscription to False Individual Income Tax Returns, and two
counts of Willful Failure to File Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial
Accounts (“FBAR”). 1 (CR Docs. 3, 463.)
On September 24, 2013, Movant was convicted on two counts of
Willful Subscription to False Individual Income Tax Returns, in violation
of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). 2 He was sentenced to a 10-month term of
imprisonment, to be followed by a one-year term of supervised release.
Movant appealed his convictions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
arguing, the following:
• “[Movant] was denied his constitutional right to crossexamine Rusch on three exhibits entered on redirect”
• “The Government’s repeated reference to [Movant’s]
complicated securities transactions as fraud was prejudicial
and the court’s allowing such references over objection was
error”
• “[Movant] was denied his constitutional right to counsel by
the trial court’s allowing Rusch to testify in violation of
[Movant’s] attorney-client privilege”
• “The trial court erroneously refused to require production of
the special agent’s report, [Movant’s] individual master file,
and the notes of the Government’s chief investigator, and
refused to review the documents in camera or even preserve
them for review by this court”
(United States v. Quiel, No. 13-10503, Doc. 20.)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Movant’s convictions on December 19,
2014, and the mandate issued on February 6, 2015. United States v. Quiel,
595 Fed.Appx. 692 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 2336 (2015).
The Ninth Circuit held, in pertinent part:
The question of whether Defendants willfully failed to report
income ... is one of fact for the jury. See Rykoff v. United
States, 40 F.3d 305, 307-08 (9th Cir. 1994). The jury could
have concluded that Kerr and Quiel knew they had a duty to
1

Co-defendant Stephen Kerr (“Kerr”) was charged with these same counts, (CR
Docs. 3, 463), and Christopher Rusch (“Rusch”), Movant and Kerr’s former attorney,
was also charged with one count of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and an
additional count of failure to file an FBAR, which was added later (CR Docs. 3, 463, 331
at 1607). Rusch subsequently entered into a plea agreement compelling him to testify at
the request of the United States. (CR Docs. 463, 415.)
2

28

The record reflects that shortly after the jury returned its verdict, Movant filed a
Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal or for a New Trial. (CR Docs. 301, 302, 304.) The
Court denied the Motion on August 16, 2013. (CR Doc. 346.)
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

report the income from their foreign accounts, because
Christopher Rusch, their attorney and business partner,
testified that the accounts were set up using nominees under
Kerr’s and Quiel’s control in order to evade reporting
requirements. Even without Rusch’s testimony, the jury could
have inferred control because (a) the accounts were traded in
Kerr’s and Quiel’s stock for their benefit; (b) the foreign
firms never served their stated purpose of finding investors;
and (c) these firms were not actual, functioning businesses.
Additionally, even without Rusch’s testimony, the jury could
infer motive from Kerr’s having recently paid high tax rates
and Quiel’s recent payment of a large tax penalty before
either engaged in these transactions.
On March 13, 2015, Movant and Kerr filed a Joint Motion for New
Trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
alleging newly discovered evidence. (CR Doc. 454.) Specifically,
Defendants’ argued: (1) “evidence has emerged showing that Rusch
engaged in fraudulent activities”; (2) “the Government has agreed ‘to look
the other way while its witness commits additional crimes’”; and (3)
“Pierre Gabris, a Swiss-national and alleged participant in the structuring of
the Swiss accounts, would testify that ‘he did not prepare or send trial
exhibits 51 and 52,’ which were offered into evidence on Rusch’s re-direct”
and “contain emails originally sent from Gabris to Rusch, who forwarded
them to Defendants, regarding accounting statements from Defendants’
Swiss corporations.” (CR Docs. 454, 463.) The Court denied the Joint
Motion for New Trial on July 15, 2015, (CR Doc. 463), and on July 28,
2015, Movant and Kerr filed a Notice of Appeal from the July 15, 2015
Order (CR Doc. 467).
On December 28, 2015, in the appellate court case, Movant and Kerr
filed a Joint Motion for Remand to the District Court & Motion to Stay
Briefing Schedule, arguing that the Court of Appeals should remand the
action to the district court so it can: (1) “consider evidence that was before
it but which that [the district] Court did not consider,” and (2) consider new
evidence and argument that either came to light after the Joint Motion for
New Trial was filed or “was [not] otherwise ... presented.” (United States v.
Kerr, et al., No. 15-10393, Doc. 17.)
The Ninth Circuit denied the Motion for Remand without prejudice
to the filing of “a renewed motion accompanied by an indication that the
district court is willing to entertain the limited remand motion.” (United
States v. Kerr, et al., No. 15-10393, Doc. 19.) On March 7, 2016, Movant
and Kerr filed a Joint Motion to Accept Remand to Consider New Evidence
for a New Trial in the district court. (CR Doc. 471.) Defendants argued: (1)
“This Court should accept a remand so as to consider new evidence and
-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

argument that were not before this Court but which came to light while the
motion was pending, after it was appealed, or that was otherwise not
presented”; and (2) “This Court should accept remand so as to consider
evidence that was presented to this Court” but “which this Court did not
consider.” (CR Doc. 471.) Defendants’ newly discovered evidence
consisted of four declarations, one of which came from Jerome Perucchi
that was signed on June 4, 2015, and was used as part of civil lawsuit in a
state court matter. (CR Doc. 471.)
While the Joint Motion was pending before the district court, on
May 17, 2016, Movant filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (CV Doc.
1; CR Doc. 474.) Thereafter, the district court directed the parties to show
cause why the § 2255 proceeding should not be stayed pending the Court’s
determination on the Joint Motion to Accept Remand. (CV Doc. 3.)
Then, on July 22, 2016, the Court denied the Joint Motion to Accept
Remand (CR Doc. 475), 3 and on August 2, 2016, the Court discharged the
Order to Show Cause after concluding that it had been mooted by the
Court’s ruling on the Joint Motion (CV Doc. 6). In the same August 2,
2016 Order, the Court also denied Movant’s § 2255 Motion with leave to
amend and gave Movant 30 days to file an amended motion using the
court-approved form. (CV Doc. 6.)
On September 1, 2016, Movant filed an amended Motion Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in
Federal Custody (CV Doc. 7). In the amended § 2255 Motion, Movant
alleges four grounds for relief. In Ground One, he claims that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney refused to call

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

On July 27, 2016, Movant and Kerr filed a Joint Amended Notice of Appeal seeking
to appeal both the district court’s denial of the Joint Motion for New Trial (CR Doc. 463) and
the denial of the Joint Motion to Accept Remand (CR Doc. 475). In their Joint Brief filed on
December 12, 2016, Defendants argued:
I. When A District Court Does Not Even Consider Evidence
And Then Analyzes Other Allegations But Not The Evidence Itself, Is
It An Abuse Of Discretion?
II. When A District Court Fails To Properly Analyze The
Evidence With The Appropriate Legal Standards, Is It An Abuse Of
Discretion?
III. When A District Court Fails To Properly Apply The
Law To Newly Discovered Evidence, As Well As Analyze The
Evidence, Is It An Abuse Of Discretion?
(United States v. Kerr, et al., No. 15-10393, Doc. 32.)

-4-

1

any witnesses or submit any evidence after the government rested its case
in chief. In Ground Two, Movant appears to argue that his due process
rights were violated by the introduction at trial of perjured testimony that
the government knew or should have known was false. Movant further
alleges that the government failed or refused to produce evidence that
would confirm that perjured testimony was introduced at trial. In Ground
Three, Movant claims that the government has not produced evidence that
it properly appointed the attorneys who prosecuted him, and the
government has not demonstrated that it followed “proper procedure when
it began prosecution.” In Ground Four, Movant argues that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with “matters that occurred
pre and post trial.” (CV Docs. 7, 10.)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(Doc. 17 at 1–5.)

11

On August 22, 2017, Movant filed Movant’s Motion to Compel Government to

12

Produce Documents, requesting that the Court order the Government to produce

13

“amended Forms 1040 for the tax years 2000-2003, along with the FBAR returns for

14

2000-2003 allegedly prepared with these amended forms.” (Doc. 19.) On August 29,

15

2017, the Government filed a motion opposing this request. (Doc. 20.)

16

On September 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s

17

denial of Movant’s motion for a new trial and motion for remand in the underlying

18

criminal matter. United States v. Kerr, No. 15-10393, 2017 WL 4284757 (9th Cir. Sept.

19

27, 2017).

20

II.

Legal Standard

21

This Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

23

(2012). “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and

24

file written objections” to the R&R. Id. This Court “must review the magistrate judge’s

25

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United

26

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in

27

original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

28

(“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal

-5-

1

issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’” (internal citation omitted)

2

(emphasis in original)).

3

Movant objects to all of the Magistrate Judge’s legal findings and many of her

4

factual findings, (Doc. 18); therefore, this Court will review all of Movant’s claims de

5

novo.

6
7

III.

Discussion
A. Jurisdiction

8

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, this Court has limited jurisdiction to adjudicate a

9

collateral action by a “prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of

10

Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012); see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 565 (9th

11

Cir. 2014) (noting that the “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional and must be satisfied

12

before consideration of the merits). One is in custody when sentenced by a federal court

13

to incarceration or conditional release. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989) (per

14

curiam); see Reves, 774 F.3d at 565. This jurisdictional requirement is satisfied when a

15

collateral action is initiated before custody ends. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491.

16

According to Movant, his term of supervised release terminates on January 13,

17

2017. (CR Doc. 477.) Movant initiated this collateral action on May 17, 2016. (Doc. 1.)

18

Therefore, because Movant initiated his collateral action before the end of custody, this

19

Court has jurisdiction under Section 2255.
B. Timeliness

20
21

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),

22

collateral actions under Section 2255 are subject to a 1-year statute of limitations. 28

23

U.S.C. § 2255(f) (2012). As relevant, the limitations period proceeds from the date that a

24

movant’s conviction becomes final Id.

25

The statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, and is treated as an affirmative

26

defense to be raised by the Government, unless a court discretionarily raises the issue sua

27

sponte. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006). Each claim that is challenged by

28

the government as time-barred, or which a court considers sua sponte, must individually

-6-

1

meet the requirements of the statute of limitations. See Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d

2

1164, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying a “claim-by-claim” approach to Section 2244’s

3

statute of limitations); see also Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 528–30 (2003)

4

(reading portions of the statute of limitations requirements in Sections 2244 and 2255 to

5

have the same meaning despite “verbal differences”). When a defendant petitions the

6

Supreme Court for certiorari, the conviction “becomes final when the Supreme Court

7

either denies the writ or issues a decision on its merits.” Clay, 537 U.S. at 529 n.4

8

(internal citation omitted).

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) provides four guides for calculating Section

10

2255’s statute of limitations. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001);

11

see also Rule 12 of Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (“The Federal Rules of

12

Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to the extent that they are

13

not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a

14

proceeding under these rules.”). First, exclude the day of the triggering event. Fed. R.

15

Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Second, include all intermediate days. Id. Third, include the last day,

16

but if it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then proceed to the end of the next

17

unqualified day. Id. Fourth, the last day ends at midnight when filing electronically or

18

when the clerk’s office closes when filing by other means. Id. A year is 365 days in a

19

normal year and 366 days in a leap year. See United States v. Tawab, 984 F.2d 1533,

20

1534 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Marcello, 212 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2000).

21

The Government asserts that the statute of limitations bars “much of [Movant’s]

22

false testimony claim.” (Doc. 11 at 4.) The Supreme Court denied certiorari, making

23

Movant’s claim final, on May 18, 2015. Quiel v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2336 (mem.)

24

(2015). Movant filed this collateral attack in a leap year on May 17, 2016. (Doc. 1.)

25

Therefore, Movant’s claim was timely filed on the day before the limitations period

26

ended. The Government concedes that Movant’s filing was punctual, but argues that any

27

new facts that surfaced in the September 1, 2016 amendment, particularly Movant’s

28

quotations from a declaration by Jerome Perucchi (“Perucchi Declaration”), are time-

-7-

1

barred.

2

Declaration in the original filing, making the time-bar inapplicable. (Doc. 14 at 10.)

(Doc. 11 at 4–5.)

Movant, in contrast, claims that he cited the Perucchi

3

In a Section 2255 action, relation back of claims is governed by Federal Rule of

4

Civil Procedure 15(c). Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649 (2005). Under Rule 15(c),

5

relation back occurs when an “amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the

6

conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original

7

pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). Meaning, in the context of a Section 2255

8

proceeding, that the amended claims must “arise from the same core facts as the timely

9

filed claims,” and not “depend upon events separate in ‘both time and type’ from the

10

originally raised episodes.” Mayle, 545 U.S. at 657 (internal citation omitted).

11

Contrary to Movant’s characterization, (Doc. 14 at 10), the Perucchi Declaration

12

was not cited in the original filing. See (Doc. 1 at 21.) Nor was the Perucchi Declaration

13

attached to the original filing, as it was with the amended filing. (Doc. 7-4.) Rather, the

14

original filing discusses Rusch’s allegedly perjured testimony that he surreptitiously

15

notarized Perucchi’s signature and references Perucchi’s involvement with one of the

16

Swiss funds. (Id.) As part of this discussion, Movant cites documents that themselves

17

cite the Perucchi Declaration.

18

quotations from the Perucchi Declaration concern the same narrow grouping of facts as

19

the discussion in the original filing; namely, Perucchi’s role in the Swiss fund, his

20

awareness of the fund’s operations, and which documents he personally signed. (Doc. 7

21

at 6; Doc. 7-1 at 8.) Thus, because both the new quotations and the original filing discuss

22

the same common core of operative facts, which concern events that occurred at the same

23

time and were of the same type, the quotations relate back to the original filing date and

24

are not time-barred. The Government does not specifically identify, and the Court does

25

not find, any other claims barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, none of Movant’s

26

claims are time-barred.

27
28

(Id.) (citing CR Docs. 471 & 473.)

The disputed

C. The Law of the Case, Waiver, and Procedural Default
The Government argues that many of Movant’s claims have been waived,

-8-

1

procedurally-defaulted, or already considered by this Court. (Doc. 11.)

2

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s determination that the

3

information in the Perucchi Declaration and information relating to Rusch continuing to

4

practice law under a pseudonym do not provide any basis for relief. United States v. Kerr,

5

No. 15-10393, 2017 WL 4284757 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2017); see (CR Doc. 475 at 12 n.5;

6

CR Doc. 463; CR Doc. 475 at 12.) Under the law of the case doctrine, this Court is

7

generally prohibited from reconsidering issues already decided by an appellate court,

8

United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997); therefore, this Court cannot

9

reconsider these issues.

10

For the Court to reach the merits of Movant’s remaining claims, Movant must

11

show that his claims are neither procedurally defaulted nor waived. Bousley v. United

12

States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998). A defendant waives defenses or objections, not raised

13

before trial, regarding “defect[s] in instituting the prosecution”—including “error[s] in

14

the grand-jury proceeding”—and “defect[s] in the indictment.”

15

12(b)(3); see also Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 241–42 (1973) (holding that Rule

16

12 waiver applies to Section 2255 proceedings). Procedural default bars habeas review

17

of a movant’s viable claims that were not raised on direct review. Bousley, 523 U.S. at

18

622.

Fed. R. Crim. P.

19

In the Section 2255 context, a movant can only overcome waiver and procedural

20

default by showing either “cause” and “prejudice” or “actual innocence.” Id. Failure to

21

satisfy either of the cause-and-prejudice factors obviates the need to evaluate the other.

22

See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167 (1982). Learning that a new claim is a

23

possibility—based upon previously undiscovered facts that were discoverable with

24

reasonable diligence—does not, alone, amount to cause. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S.

25

478, 488 (1986). There must be some “objective factor external to the defense” that

26

impeded counsel’s ability to comply with a procedural rule, such as “a factual or legal

27

basis for a claim [that] was not reasonably available to counsel” or a severe error

28

rendering counsel constitutionally ineffective that “impute[s]” default to the Government.

-9-

1

Id. (applying these rules to the analogous Section 2254 exhaustion context); see Coleman

2

v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 745–46 (1991) (discussing the overlapping policy interest in

3

finality that influences procedural default rules in Section 2255 and Section 2254

4

actions); Frady, 456 U.S. at 166 (noting that federal prisoners under Section 2255 do not

5

receive “preferred status when they seek postconviction relief,” when compared to

6

Section 2254 prisoners). The actual innocence exception is “very narrow,” Sawyer v.

7

Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 339–41 (1992), requiring a showing that “‘in light of all the

8

evidence,’ ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted’” the

9

movant. Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623 (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327–28

10

(1995)).

11

Waiver and procedural default do not apply to claims of ineffective assistance of

12

trial counsel, Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 509 (2003), or claims that

13

challenge a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568

14

U.S. 145, 153 (2013); United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 892 (9th Cir. 1991)

15

(refusing to evaluate procedural default due to challenge to court’s jurisdiction based

16

upon allegedly improper appointment of a government attorney).

17
18
19

Therefore, Movant’s Ground One and Ground Four ineffective assistance of
counsel claims are neither procedurally defaulted nor waived.
1. Ground Two

20

In Ground Two, Movant makes four Due Process arguments alleging Government

21

perjury. (Doc. 7 at 6; Doc. 7-1 at 7–13.) First, Movant claims that Cheryl Bradley and

22

Christopher Rusch, Government witnesses, committed perjury by testifying that Movant

23

had prepared FBAR forms, which Movant claims do not exist. (Doc. 7-1 at 7.) Second,

24

Movant claims that Rusch perjured himself by testifying that he printed and faxed emails

25

that would become Exhibits 52 and 53 to Movant; Movant claims he never received these

26

documents. (Id. at 9.) Third, Movant claims that Rusch provided “false testimony” by

27

using Movant’s “passport and personal information without [Movant’s] knowledge or

28

permission.” (Id.) Fourth, Movant claims that Rusch perjured himself by testifying that

- 10 -

1

Rusch created and oversaw the Swiss funds for Movant’s benefit, while Movant contends

2

that he was only “to be the initial investor into the foreign hedge funds.” (Id. at 9–10.)

3

All of Movant’s remaining Ground Two claims are procedurally-defaulted.

4

Movant did not raise any of these arguments on direct appeal and he fails to show cause.

5

Movant’s second, third, and fourth claims concern facts Movant knew before appeal.

6

Movant’s first claim, concerning the existence of the FBARs, involves information that

7

Movant could have learned with reasonable diligence prior to appeal. Finally, Movant

8

does not suggest, and the Court does not find, that he has made a showing of actual

9

innocence.

10

2. Ground Three

11

Whether Movant has waived or procedurally defaulted his Ground Three claims

12

turns on their meaning. In Ground Three, Movant makes two arguments. One challenges

13

the appointment of the Government attorneys who prosecuted the underlying criminal

14

case. (Doc. 7 at 7; Doc. 7-1 at 17.) The other concerns his criminal referral. (Id.)

15

First, Movant argues that the Government should be compelled to disclose the

16

documents proving that the attorneys representing the United States were properly

17

appointed. (Doc. 7-1 at 16.) If such disclosure establishes that the attorneys were

18

improperly appointed, Movant argues, then “the charges were wrongfully brought”

19

against Movant. (Id.) Movant’s suggested import of this claim is not clear. Movant

20

could be arguing that because the Government attorneys were improperly appointed, the

21

indictment is nullified. Alternatively, Movant could be arguing that the Article III case

22

and controversy requirement was not satisfied, because the United States was not a party

23

to the action, preventing the Court from having had subject-matter jurisdiction over the

24

criminal matter. See (Id.)

25

Second, Movant asks that the Court to order Government disclosure of Movant’s

26

criminal referral from the IRS, which Movant claims an “appellate body” has already

27

ordered the Government to disclose. (Doc. 7 at 7.)

28

To the extent that both of Movant’s Ground Three claims relate to defects in the

- 11 -

1

indictment or with the criminal referral, they are waived and procedurally defaulted.

2

Movant did not raise these issues pretrial, as required by Rule 12(b), and did not raise

3

them on direct review, as required by the procedural default standard. Further, Movant

4

has not shown cause, because information relating to the appointment of attorneys and

5

the criminal referral was discoverable with reasonable diligence prior to trial. Movant

6

does not allege that the factual or legal basis for the claim was not reasonably available to

7

counsel or that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to uncover these facts

8

or make these claims.

9

Furthermore, Movant has not presented any evidence that would meet the

10

extremely narrow test of actual innocence. Errors in the indictment or with the grand jury

11

process, taken as true, would not be so forceful as to prevent any reasonable juror from

12

convicting Movant, taking all evidence into consideration. Thus, Movant’s claims, as

13

stylized, will not be considered, because Movant has shown neither cause nor actual

14

innocence.

15

In contrast, to the extent that Movant’s appointment claim can be read as

16

suggesting that this Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction in the underlying

17

criminal case, it is neither waived nor procedurally-defaulted.

18

D. Grounds One and Four: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

19

Movant identifies two attorneys who allegedly provided him with constitutionally

20

ineffective assistance of counsel. The first is Michael Minns, Movant’s attorney during

21

trial and on appeal. (Doc. 7 at 5; Doc. 7-1 at 1–6.) The second is Joy Bertrand, Movant’s

22

local counsel (Doc. 7 at 8.)

23

The Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants who face incarceration with

24

the right to effective assistance of counsel at “all critical stages of the criminal process.”

25

Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 80–81 (2004); see U.S. Const. amend. VI; Strickland v.

26

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). Critical stages of the criminal process include,

27

but are not limited to, the guilt-phase of a trial, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218,

28

226–27 (1967), sentencing, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 137 (1967), and motions for a

- 12 -

1

new trial filed before a direct appeal-by-right is waived or decided, Rodgers v. Marshall,

2

678 F.3d 1149, 1156–59 (9th Cir. 2012), rev’d on other grounds, 569 U.S. 58 (2013) (per

3

curiam); United States v. Del Muro, 87 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam);

4

Menefield v. Borg, 881 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1989); but cf. Rodgers, 569 U.S. at 61

5

(assuming, without deciding, that the posttrial, preappeal period for a new trial motion is

6

a critical stage of the proceeding).

7

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment,

8

a movant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at

9

687. A court is free to evaluate either factor first and need not proceed with the inquiry if

10

a movant fails to satisfy the first considered factor. Id. at 696.

11

Deficient performance exists where counsel’s performance “fell below an

12

objective standard of reasonableness” in light of “prevailing professional norms.” Id. at

13

688. “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential,” given “the

14

variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel [and] the range of legitimate decisions

15

regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant.” Id. at 689. Given “the distorting

16

effects of hindsight,” a court “must indulge a strong presumption” that counsel’s

17

performance is not objectively unreasonable. Id. at 689–90. “Strategic choices made

18

after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually

19

unchallengeable.” Id. at 691. Professional standards of conduct serve as non-dispositive

20

guides for evaluating counsel’s performance. Id. at 688. Mere conclusory allegations of

21

ineffective assistance do not provide the basis for Section 2255 relief. See James v. Borg,

22

24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994).

23

Prejudice requires a movant to “show that there is a reasonable probability that,

24

but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

25

different.” Id. at 694. “The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just

26

conceivable.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011). A court evaluates a

27

movant’s showing in light of “the totality of the evidence” that was before the trial court.

28

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96.

- 13 -

1

Ultimately, this analysis is aimed at determining “whether counsel’s conduct so

2

undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be

3

relied on as having produced a just result.” Id. at 686.

4

1. Ground One

5

Movant claims that his trial counsel, Mr. Minns, was constitutionally ineffective

6

for failing to call any witnesses or to present any evidence after the Government rested its

7

case-in-chief. (Doc. 7 at 5.) Movant alleges that Mr. Minns acted upon a belief that the

8

Government had not met its burden of proof. (Id.) Specifically, Movant cites four

9

defense expert witnesses that had prepared reports, but who Mr. Minns did not call during

10

the guilt-phase; “multiple factual witnesses ready to testify on” Movant’s behalf, who Mr.

11

Minns did not call during the guilt-phase; Movant’s unfulfilled desire to testify at trial;

12

and unfavorable statements made by Mr. Minns as to his own performance. (Id.; Doc. 7-

13

1 at 1–6.)

14

The Court rejects the factual basis that Mr. Minns was ineffective for not calling

15

any witnesses at trial. While Mr. Minns did not personally call any witnesses, Mr.

16

Kimerer, attorney for Movant’s co-defendant, called Gary Stuart, a joint-defense expert

17

witness. (CR Doc. 336.) Mr. Stuart was retained by both Movant and his co-defendant,

18

had met with Mr. Minns and Movant, referred to both Movant and his co-defendant when

19

giving testimony, formed his opinion, in part, on documents provided by both Movant

20

and his co-defendant, (Id. at 2648, 2654, 2657, 2664–65, 2670), and Mr. Minns referred

21

to the witness as “a joint witness” as to which Mr. Kimerer and Mr. Minns “both had a

22

great deal of input,” (CR Doc. 323 at 45.) Mr. Stuart testified that Cristopher Rusch,

23

Movant’s former attorney turned Government witness, had engaged in multiple violations

24

of The California Rules of Professional Conduct.

25

testimony could have served to impeach Rusch as a witness and to insulate Movant and

26

his co-defendant from criminal liability by establishing a reliance-on-counsel defense

27

based, in part, upon Rusch’s alleged violation of his duties as an attorney. See (CR Doc.

28

336 at 2658.) Thus, while it is technically not false that Mr. Minns did not personally call

- 14 -

(Id.)

If believed, Mr. Stuart’s

1

nor directly examine a witness as part of the defense’s case-in-chief, it is certainly

2

factually incorrect to suggest that Mr. Minns was not involved in the presentation of an

3

expert witness for the defense.

4

Furthermore, insofar as Movant is claiming that counsel was ineffective for failing

5

to call unidentified witnesses or to call identified factual witnesses whose purported

6

testimony has not been established, Movant has not shown prejudice. Prejudice cannot

7

be established by mere speculation that unidentified witnesses could be found, that they

8

would agree to testify, and that the content of their testimony would be favorable.

9

Wildeman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001); Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480,

10

486 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1231–32 (9th Cir. 1988)

11

(denying a movant’s ineffective assistance claim, in part, upon failure to show that a

12

proposed witness would be willing to testify); United States v. Murray, 751 F.2d 1528,

13

1535 (9th Cir. 1985) (denying an ineffective assistance claim, in part, on a movant’s

14

failure to “identify any witnesses that his counsel should have called that could have been

15

helpful.”); Evans v. Cockrell, 285 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[C]omplaints of

16

uncalled witnesses are not favored in federal habeas corpus review because allegations of

17

what the witness would have testified are largely speculative.”).

18

Additionally, Movant has not shown that counsel was deficient by declining to call

19

the four identified expert witnesses: Matthew Kadish, Gail Prather, Cynthia King, and

20

Ron Braver.

21

influence an attorney’s decision to call, or refrain from calling, an expert witness,

22

including: the attorney’s theory of the case, the strength and focus of the opposing party’s

23

case, the conclusions and the certainty of the expert’s report, an evaluation of the expert’s

24

potential demeanor and presence on the stand, the expert’s vulnerability to cross-

25

examination, the role the expert will have in either clarifying or diluting issues in the

26

case, and financial considerations. As the American Bar Association describes in its

27

aspirational rules for criminal defense counsel:

28

There are a number of reasonable strategic considerations that could

Defense counsel has no obligation to present evidence, and should always

- 15 -

1

consider, in consultation with the client, whether a decision not to present
evidence may be in the client’s best interest. In making this decision,
defense counsel should consider the impact of any evidence the defense
would present and the potential damage that prosecution cross-examination
or a rebuttal case could do, as well as the quality of the prosecution’s
evidence.

2
3
4
5

ABA Criminal Justice Standard for the Defense Function 4-7.6 (4th ed. 2017).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Movant was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) for willfully filing a false tax
return, which required the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) “the
defendant made and signed a tax return for the respective years that he knew contained
false information as to a material matter,” (2) “the returns contained a written declaration
that they were being signed subject to the penalties of perjury,” and (3) “in filing the false
tax returns the defendant acted willfully.” (CR Doc. 339 at 3018.) A matter is material if
“it had a natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing the decisions or
activities of the Internal Revenue Service.” (Id.)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The primary focus of these witnesses’ testimony was on matters for which Movant
was ultimately not convicted. Mr. Kadish’s opinion was expressly limited to Movant’s
duty to file FBARs, (CR Doc. 198-1 at 1), a charge that was dismissed with prejudice,
(CR Doc. 308.) Ms. Prather and Mr. Braver concluded that Movant owed no net tax, (CR
Doc. 198-2 at 2; CR Doc. 370), which is not an element of Section 7206(1). Ms. King’s
report only discusses securities laws, (CR Doc. 198-3), under which no charges were
filed.
Beyond the general considerations that bear on an attorney’s decision to call a
witness, and the irrelevancy of most the proposed experts’ opinions, there were specific
reasons that could have influenced Mr. Minns’ decision not to call Mr. Kadish and Mr.
Braver. Rusch, to the defense’s surprise, testified that the shares in the Swiss funds were
bearer shares. (Doc. 335 at 2605.) Mr. Kadish told Mr. Minns that this may trigger
FBAR reporting duties for U.S. citizens holding those shares. (Id.) Mr. Minns became
concerned that this might raise “a question of first impression” as to the FBAR reporting
requirements, because Movant never held bearer shares, but was accused of accessing the
- 16 -

1

account through a nominee who did hold those shares. (Id.) Thus, there was a risk on

2

cross-examination that Mr. Kadish would admit that Movant had an FBAR reporting

3

duty. (Id.) Given that Mr. Kadish’s testimony was meant to rebut the FBAR reporting

4

charge, it would have been risky to call him given his newfound uncertainty of Movant’s

5

duty to report.

6

Furthermore, there were reasonable strategic reasons not to call Mr. Braver during

7

the guilt-phase of the trial. While Mr. Braver ultimately concluded that Movant owed no

8

net tax, which benefitted Movant during sentencing, he did testify that Movant had

9

unreported income during 2007 and 2008, which would have reinforced the

10

Government’s case for the crime that Movant was ultimately convicted. (CR Doc. 370 at

11

125–26, 131.) Additionally, it made sense to not call both Mr. Braver and Ms. Prather, as

12

Mr. Braver disagreed with Ms. Prather’s calculations, which would have allowed the

13

Government to highlight inconsistency in defense expert testimony. (CR Doc. 370 at

14

105–06.)

15

Additionally, Mr. Minns’ decision regarding when to call witnesses seemed to be

16

influenced by the witnesses the Government actually called; thus establishing that Mr.

17

Minns was making a reasoned choice of which witnesses to utilize rather than

18

unreasonably failing to call witnesses. (Doc. 370 at 104) (stating that Mr. Minns did not

19

call Mr. Braver during the guilt-phase of the trial due to the Government not calling

20

particular experts).

21

Movant claims that it was “not a sound trial strategy” for Mr. Minns to refuse to

22

call these experts based upon his evaluation of the strength of the Government’s case.

23

(Doc. 18 at 3.) Movant’s argument, however, is conclusory, and does not rebut the

24

extensive presumption of reasonableness given to trial counsel’s strategic decisions. Mr.

25

Minns investigated the possibility of using these experts, observed the strength and focus

26

of the Government’s case, and ultimately chose not to call on them to testify. Thus, even

27

if the witnesses’ testimony would have been tangentially responsive to the Government’s

28

case, Mr. Minns acted within the wide range of reasonableness in refusing to call them.

- 17 -

1

For this same reason, Movant cannot show prejudice. Movant contends that as

2

part of their testimony, these expert witnesses would have presented evidence that could

3

have negated willfulness. (Doc. 18 at 4–11.) Weighing the expert’s testimony in their

4

reports against the Government evidence during trial, there is not a reasonable probability

5

that the jury would not have found willfulness. Movant is attempting to dissect and

6

magnify the conclusions in these expert reports. While small portions of these experts’

7

testimony would have been relevant in responding to the Government’s case, they do not

8

present the necessary evidentiary force to show a reasonable probability that the outcome

9

would have been different.

10

Movant argues that this Court’s finding during sentencing, where Mr. Minns did

11

directly call an expert witness, that the Government did not establish a tax loss on a

12

preponderance of the evidence standard shows a reasonable probability that the outcome

13

of the guilt-phase of the proceeding would have been different had Mr. Minns called the

14

experts. (Doc. 14 at 8.) As noted above, however, tax loss is not an element of the

15

offense of which Movant was convicted. This Court’s finding was relevant as to the

16

sentence imposed and not as to Movant’s guilt. A specific finding by a specific authority

17

following testimony on a specific topic by a specific witness does not establish, as

18

Movant suggests, that other findings by another authority would be made following

19

testimony on other topics by other witnesses. See (Id. at 9) (“Had witnesses testified and

20

evidence [been] presented at trial, the fact finder, like this Court, reasonably would have

21

found that the government had not met its burden of proof on any count.”).

22

Additionally, Mr. Minns’ recommendation that Movant not testify at trial

23

establishes neither deficient performance nor prejudice. It is reasonable for an attorney to

24

recommend that a criminal defendant not waive their Fifth Amendment right against self-

25

incrimination. Cf. U.S. Const. amend. V; Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155–56

26

(1958) (discussing Fifth Amendment waiver). Mr. Minns, after consideration, ultimately

27

decided that it would be imprudent to call Movant as a witness given Rusch’s testimony.

28

See (CR Doc. 330 at 1417–18) (noting that Mr. Minns’ recommendation that Movant

- 18 -

1

testify was contingent on Rusch’s testimony); (CR Doc. 338 at 2948) (noting that Mr.

2

Minns told his client, after deliberation, not to testify); see also (CR Doc. 323 at 9)

3

(discussing Mr. Kimerer’s pretrial uncertainty as to whether Movant and his co-defendant

4

would testify). Further, Movant does not describe the content of his proposed testimony,

5

and thus cannot show prejudice due to a failure to show a reasonable probability that the

6

outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

7

Furthermore, Mr. Minns’ statements regarding his own performance do not

8

establish constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. First, Movant highlights Mr.

9

Minns’ statement “we really shouldn’t have professional witnesses. We should have

10

experts. We need experts,” (Doc. 7-1 at 1), as an admission that Mr. Minns believed the

11

defense needed to call experts to put on their case. Movant fails to appreciate the context

12

surrounding this statement.

13

experts, but was criticizing the Government for using what he calls “professional

14

witnesses,” who he claims “go to witness-testifying school,” while conceding that experts

15

are important to the adversarial process. (CR Doc. 338 at 2953.) Second, Mr. Minns’

16

statement during sentencing that he made “some seriously bad strategy decisions” does

17

not establish that he provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. An

18

admission of imperfect performance is not necessarily an admission to the sort of

19

seriously grave error required to establish constitutional ineffectiveness.

20

particularly true in the sentencing context, where an attorney could wrongfully surmise

21

that such prostration would garner sympathy for the soon-to-be-sentenced client.

22

Additionally, attorneys are equally subject to the hindsight bias that courts must guard

23

against when evaluating past performance with the benefit of future knowledge, making

24

their own after-the-fact admissions suspect.

Mr. Minns was not admitting that the defense needed

This is

25

Finally, Movant’s claim that Mr. Minns presented no evidence, making him

26

ineffective, shows neither deficient performance nor prejudice, because it is conclusory

27

and does not suggest what evidence Mr. Minns should have presented and how this

28

would have affected the outcome of the case. See Secrease v. Walker, No. 2:09-cv-299

- 19 -

1

JAM TJB, 2011 WL 2790155, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2011) (citing James v. Borg, 24

2

F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994)), adopted by, No. 2:09-cv-299 JAM TJB (E.D. Cal. July 22,

3

2011).

4

2. Ground Four

5

Movant makes four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning Ms.

6

Bertrand’s work before and after trial. First, Movant claims that Ms. Bertrand was paid

7

for work, regarding the investigation of jurors, that she did not complete. (Doc. 7 at 8.)

8

Second, Movant argues that Ms. Bertrand’s representation of him in an ultimately

9

dismissed state court proceeding and in a federal bond hearing behooved her to present

10

that dismissal to this Court. (Id.) The effect of this presentation, Movant claims, would

11

have been to lower his custody level, which would have resulted in incarceration in

12

Arizona, near his family, rather than in Texas. (Id.) Movant’s third claim is difficult to

13

dissect. It appears that Movant is claiming that Ms. Bertrand was aware of an affidavit

14

by Pierre Gabris and that she told Movant of this fact, but later claimed that she learned

15

of this affidavit from Movant. (Id.) Further, she was allegedly in direct contact with Mr.

16

Gabris, Mr. Perucchi, and Movant’s counsel in Movant’s civil case against Mr. Perucchi.

17

(Id.) Despite all of this, Movant claims, Ms. Bertrand failed to “obtain and file” the

18

Perucchi Declaration with this Court.

19

following Movant’s incarceration, Ms. Bertrand refused to directly communicate with

20

Movant, except for occasional phone calls, even regarding Movant’s Rule 33 motion for

21

a new trial, effectively “denying [Movant] access to the [C]ourt.” (Id.) This prevented

22

Movant from providing allegedly new information to the Court, such as the Perucchi

23

Declaration. (Id.)

(Id.)

Finally, Movant’s fourth claim is that

24

The Government argues that Movant was not owed constitutionally effective

25

assistance of counsel in preparing his Rule 33 motion for a new trial. (Doc. 11 at 6.)

26

Because this Court previously treated that motion as a collateral action for the purposes

27

of AEDPA’s statute of limitations, the Government argues, it should treat it similarly for

28

determining Movant’s constitutional protections. (Id.) This Court disagrees; its previous

- 20 -

1

holding was limited to the statute of limitations context and is not determinative for

2

Movant’s right to effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, following the Ninth Circuit

3

Court of Appeals precedent discussed above, Movant had a right to effective assistance of

4

counsel in filing his Rule 33 motion.

5

First, assuming that it is objectively unreasonable for an attorney to fail to perform

6

work for which the attorney was paid, Movant was not prejudiced by Ms. Bertrand’s

7

alleged failure to “complete[] her work [or her] refus[al] to return unused funds.” (Id.)

8

Movant’s claim suggests that Ms. Bertrand could have remedied her allegedly incomplete

9

performance by returning the unearned funds. (Id.) Thus, Movant’s claim is focused on

10

compensation, not procedural outcome. Therefore, because Movant does not suggest that

11

there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been

12

different if Ms. Bertrand completed her allegedly deficient jury investigation, Movant is

13

not prejudiced.

14

Second, assuming that Ms. Bertrand knew of, and failed to disclose, the

15

information relating to the dismissal of Movant’s state court proceeding, Movant has

16

failed to show prejudice. Movant does not argue that the result of the sentence would

17

have been different, but rather that Movant’s custody level would have been lowered if

18

this information was known. Custody level determinations, however, are not made by

19

this Court, but by the Bureau of Prisons, and cannot be reviewed in a Section 2255

20

action. Johnson v. United States, Nos. 3:11-cv-345-FDW, 3:07-cr-173-FDW, 2012 WL

21

6642085, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2012). Therefore, Movant has failed to show that

22

there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been

23

different; therefore, he fails to show prejudice.

24

Third, even assuming that Ms. Bertrand was aware of the Gabris affidavit before

25

Movant was, that she was in contact with Mr. Gabris, Mr. Perucchi, and Movant’s state-

26

court attorney, and that she failed to obtain and submit the Perucchi Declaration, Movant

27

has failed to show prejudice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s

28

express rejection of the claim that the Perucchi Declaration contained information that

- 21 -

1

would provide any basis for requiring a new trial. United States v. Kerr, No. 15-10393

2

(9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2017); (CR Doc. 475 at 12 n.5). Thus, because Movant has not shown

3

a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different

4

had Ms. Bertrand submitted the Perucchi Declaration, he was not prejudiced.

5

Fourth, assuming that Ms. Bertrand refused to communicate with Movant directly,

6

Movant fails to show prejudice. Movant’s only specific claim in this regard is that the

7

failure to communicate resulted in Ms. Bertrand failing to file the Perucchi Declaration.

8

As discussed in the previous paragraph, that alleged failure does not constitute prejudice.

9

For the same reason, the purported cause of that non-prejudice—Ms. Bertrand’s alleged

10
11

failure to communicate—does not constitute prejudice.
E. Ground Three: Appointment and Criminal Referral Issues

12

The strongest formulation of Movant’s non-defaulted and un-waived appointment

13

claim proceeds in five steps. See (Doc. 7 at 7; Doc. 7-1 at 13–17.) The Assistant United

14

States Attorneys (“AUSAs”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) trial attorneys who

15

initiated and pursued prosecution were improperly appointed. Therefore, they were not

16

proper representatives of the United States in the criminal proceeding. Thus, the United

17

States was not a party to the action. As a result, this Court had no subject-matter

18

jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding.

19

criminal conviction that was rendered without proper authority.

Accordingly, this Court must vacate the

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must have subject-matter

21

jurisdiction to authoritatively render judgment. United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496

22

F.3d 947, 951 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see Restatement (Second) of Judgements § 1

23

(Am. Law. Inst. 1982).

24

jurisdiction are defined by the Constitution, while the inner bounds are defined by federal

25

law. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cls. 1 & 2 (stating that the original jurisdiction of the

26

Supreme Court cannot be modified by federal law). Article III requires that a “case” or

27

“controversy” exist for a federal court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over a

28

proceeding. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94–96 (1968)

For circuit and district courts, the outer bounds of this

- 22 -

1

(“[T]he judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to ‘cases’ and

2

‘controversies.’”).

3

The Constitution enumerates particular cases and controversies over which federal

4

courts have subject-matter jurisdiction, including those “Controversies to which the

5

United States” is a party and “Cases . . . arising under . . . the Laws of the United States.”

6

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Thus, in a federal criminal proceeding, federal courts have

7

jurisdiction where the United States is a party for two reasons. First, by the mere fact that

8

the United States is a party. Second, because the United States has standing to bring

9

criminal proceedings under federal law. In contrast, when the United States is not a party

10

to a federal criminal proceeding, a federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction,

11

because the United States is not a party and because private individuals have no standing

12

to claim alleged violations of federal criminal law. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410

13

U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (holding that private individuals have no “judicially cognizable

14

interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”); cf. Young v. United States ex

15

rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 797–801 (1987) (discussing the rare situation,

16

motivated by separation of powers concerns and the inherent power of courts to regulate

17

judicial proceedings, where a court can empower a private individual to prosecute

18

criminal contempt proceedings as a representative of the United States).

19

It is well-settled that a federal court’s jurisdiction cannot be expanded by statute to

20

extend beyond the Constitution’s limits.

See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 (“This

21

Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance

22

thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land”); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1

23

Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) (“[A] law repugnant to the constitution is void.”); Hodgson v.

24

Browerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303, 304 (1809) (A “statute cannot extend the jurisdiction

25

[of a federal court] beyond the limits of the constitution.”). By statute, district courts

26

have original jurisdiction over “offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18

27

U.S.C. § 3231 (2012). This broad statutory grant of authority over criminal matters is

28

constrained, however, by the Article III case-and-controversy requirement.

- 23 -

1
2

When a trial court rendered a judgment without subject-matter jurisdiction, a
habeas court can provide relief. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 23–24 (1939).

3

The United States is a party to a proceeding if a single “proper representative”

4

participates, United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693, 708 (1988); United

5

States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 892 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Garcia-Andrade,

6

No. 13-CR-993-IEG, 2013 WL 4027859, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013).

7

designation is not defeated by the presence of improper representatives. United States v.

8

Plesinski, 912 F.2d 1033, 1038 (9th Cir. 1990). Indeed, an unauthorized attorney may

9

appear “in court alone on several occasions” and jurisdiction is not defeated so long as

10

that attorney “was at all times acting under the direction and supervision of” a proper

11

representative. Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1038. Only “officers of the Department of Justice,

12

under the direction of the Attorney General” may be proper representatives of the United

13

States in criminal proceedings, “[e]xcept as otherwise authorized by law.” 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 516 (2012); accord Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b).

This

15

Officers must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause. U.S.

16

Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. AUSAs and DOJ trial attorneys are inferior officers of the United

17

States. See Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1036–37. The default rule is that inferior officers may

18

be appointed only by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. U.S.

19

Const. art. 2, § 2, cl. 2. Congress, however, may vest this appointment authority “in the

20

President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Id.

21

Congress has vested the appointment power of AUSAs, 28 U.S.C. § 542(a)

22

(2012), and DOJ trial attorneys, id. § 515, in the Attorney General, who is the head of the

23

Department of Justice, id. § 503. The Attorney General may delegate this appointment

24

power to others within the Department of Justice. See id. § 510 (permitting delegation of

25

“any function of the Attorney General”); Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1036–37.

26

AUSAs are required to take an oath of office “to faithfully execute [their] duties,”

27

28 U.S.C. § 544 (2012), and failure to take this oath prevents an AUSA from being a

28

proper representative of the government, Plesinski, 912 F.2d 1039; see Fed. R. Crim. P.

- 24 -

1

1(b). Mere failure to re-administer a lapsed oath, however, does not prevent an attorney

2

from properly representing the United States if that attorney is unaware of the lapse.

3

Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1039. DOJ trial attorneys must also take an oath, see 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 515(a) (2012); 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (2012); however, there is no caselaw in this circuit

5

discussing whether this oath is a condition precedent to their representative capacity.

6

This Court assumes, without deciding, that this oath must be taken before DOJ trial

7

attorneys can act in their representative capacity.

8

According to Movant, Timothy J. Stockwell, a DOJ trial attorney who prosecuted

9

Movant’s case, was properly appointed and originally took an oath which has since

10

lapsed. (Doc. 7-1 at 13; Doc. 7-22.) According to the Court’s records, Mr. Stockwell

11

was involved throughout the entire life of the underlying criminal case. Thus, Mr.

12

Stockwell was a proper representative of the government in the underlying criminal case,

13

providing this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction in that proceeding.

14

Movant also “questions whether the present attorney appearing for the

15

government” in this Section 2255 action is properly appointed. (Doc. 14 at 11 n.8.)

16

Movant fails to provide evidence establishing that there is no properly appointed attorney

17

who took their oath in the present action; therefore, this Court is satisfied as to its present

18

subject-matter jurisdiction. 4

19

F. Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing, and Motion to Compel

20

In a Section 2255 proceeding, a court need not order an evidentiary hearing or

21

permit discovery where a movant’s claims, if true, would not entitle him to relief. Rule

22

6(a) of Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (stating that discovery is

23

discretionarily allowed on a finding of good cause); Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899,

24

908–09 (1997) (defining good cause as movant’s showing that if his claims were true he

25

would be entitled to relief (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969))); 28

26
27
28

4

Because subject-matter jurisdiction is a condition precedent to this Court’s
adjudicatory power, the Government must inform the Court if it knows that no
Government attorney, appearing in the underlying criminal case or the present Section
2255 action, satisfies the appointment and oath requirements.
- 25 -

1

U.S.C. § 2255(b) (2012) (requiring an evidentiary hearing except where “the motion and

2

the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no

3

relief.”).

4
5
6
7

Because Movant’s un-waived and non-defaulted claims, taken as true, would not
entitle him to relief, this Court will not allow any form of discovery.
IV.

Conclusion
This Court has reviewed all of Movant’s claims de novo and finds that Movant is

8

not entitled to Section 2255 relief.

9

Based on the foregoing,

10

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation, (Doc.

11

17), is ACCEPTED and Movant’s objections, (Doc. 18), are OVERRULED;

12

accordingly,

13

• Movant’s amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside,

14

or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 7; CR Doc.

15

474) is denied and dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall

16

enter judgment accordingly;

17

• Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied;

18

• A Certificate of Appealability is denied, because Movant has not made a

19

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see Slack v.

20

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000);

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Compel Government to

22

Produce Documents, (Doc. 19), is DENIED.

23

Dated this 24th day of October, 2017.

24
25
26
27
28

- 26 -