Juan Jose Bernabe Ramirez v. United States of America

Filing 26

JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, for the reasons stated in this Courts order dated July 29, 2020 ("Order" (CR Dkt. 4440)), defendant/petitioner Juan Jose Bernabe-Ramirez's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.SC section 2255 ((CV Dkt. 1 and CR Dkt. 4427)) is hereby GRANTED and JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (SEE JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
10

No. CR 87-422-JAK-10
No. CV 19-05491-JAK

Plaintiff,
11

JUDGMENT
v.

12
13

RAFAEL CARO QUINTERO, et al.,
- JUAN JOSE BERNABE-RAMIREZ
(10),

14
15

Defendants.

16
17

IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, for the reasons stated in this

18

Court’s order dated July 29, 2020 (“Order” (CR Dkt. 4440)) 1,

19

defendant/petitioner Juan Jose Bernabe-Ramirez’s (“defendant’s”)

20

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion” (CV Dkt. 1 and CR Dkt. 4427)) is hereby

22

GRANTED and JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED. 2

23
24
25
26
27
28

1 “CR Dkt.” refers to the court criminal docket in United States
v. Caro-Quintero, et al., case number CR 87-422-JAK, U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, and is followed by the
docket entry. “CV Dkt.” refers to the court civil docket in Juan Jose
Bernabe Ramirez v. United States, case number CV 19-05491-JAK, U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, and is
followed by the docket entry.
2 Entry of judgment on the Motion was deferred (and the Order
was not final), until the entry of this Judgment. (CR Dkt. 4440, pg.
18)

1

IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, for the reasons stated in the

2

Order, that the convictions and sentence in United States v. Juan

3

Jose Bernabe-Ramirez, case number CR 87-422-JAK-10, U.S. District

4

Court for the Central District of California, are VACATED as to the

5

three counts for which defendant was convicted: Count Three, which

6

charged violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (“VICAR”), in

7

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1959, 2; Count Six, which charged

8

kidnapping of a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

9

§§ 1201(a)(5), 2; and Count Eight, which charged accessory after the

10

fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. 3

11

trial as to each of these three convictions.

Defendant is granted a new

12

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS, pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18

13

U.S.C. § 3142(f), that no condition or combination of conditions

14

would assure the safety of the community and the on-going appearance

15

of defendant in this case, and defendant is therefore ordered

16

DETAINED without bond pending any new trial.

17

based on the nature of the charges in this case (namely, VICAR murder

18

conspiracy and kidnapping charges), and the lack of any lawful status

19

of defendant in the United States known to the Court.

20

sufficiently familiar with defendant’s circumstances based on its

21

review of the record of this case to make this finding.

22

of detention is without prejudice.

23
24

These findings are

The Court is

This order

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e), any such trial
on the three counts is to commence within 180 days of the entry of

25
26
27
28

3

The counts in the January 31, 1990 sixth superseding
indictment (CR Dkt. 742) were renumbered on August 17, 1990 (CR Dkt.
3246) after Count Three of the sixth superseding indictment was
dismissed. This Judgment refers to the counts in the sixth
superseding indictment, as renumbered.
(footnote cont’d on next page)
2

1

this Judgment. 4

2

aforementioned counts occurred over 27 years ago, the government (and

3

most likely the defendant) will need this additional time to locate

4

witnesses and evidence due to the passage of significant time.

5

Within ten (10) court days of the entry of this Judgment, the

6

Government shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

7

law pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

8

Judgment does not preclude either party from seeking an order from

9

the Court for a finding of additional excludable time under the

10

Given the last trial against defendant on the three

This

Speedy Trial Act based on other reasons and/or facts.

11
September 9, 2020

12
13

DATE

John A. Kronstadt
United States District Judge

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

4

The Speedy Trial Act, and specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e),
states in relevant part:
If the defendant is to be tried again following an
appeal or collateral attack, the trial shall commence
within seventy days from the date the action occasioning
the retrial becomes final, except that the court retrying
the case may extend the period of retrial not to exceed one
hundred and eighty days from the date occasioning the
retrial becomes final if unavailability of witnesses or
other factors resulting from passage of time shall make trial
within seventy days impractical.
3