Arredondo v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND MOTION TO VACATE. SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE signed by Judge Robert E. Coyle on 1/24/06. (Kusamura, W)

Download PDF
(2255-1:97-CR-5167-REC) Arredondo v. USA Doc. 2 Case 1:06-cv-00056-REC Document 2 Filed 01/24/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Although the underlying criminal action has been transferred to the docket of Judge Oliver W. Wanger, petitioner's Section 2255 motion was assigned to this court because this court sentenced petitioner. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORBERTO ARREDONDO, Petitioner, vs. Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-F-06-056 REC (No. CR-F-97-CR-5167 OWW) ORDER DISMISSING SECOND MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2255 AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT On January 17, 2006, petitioner Norberto Arredondo filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief because the court imposed sentencing enhancements in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).1 The court hereby dismisses petitioner's motion. On July 2, 2001, petitioner filed a Section 2255 motion Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00056-REC Document 2 Filed 01/24/2006 Page 2 of 3 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 based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Arrendono v. United States, No. CV-F-01-5851 REC. See By Order filed on July 5, 2001, the court denied this Section 2255 motion. Therefore, the instant motion is a second or successive Section 2255 motion. Petitioner must first apply to the Ninth Circuit In the absence Court of Appeal for leave to file such a motion. of authorization from the Ninth Circuit, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear it. 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner, citing McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991), argues that the instant motion should not be construed by this court as a "second or successive" motion because his challenge to his sentence under Booker is a new issue that did not exist and could not have been raised at the time he filed his initial Section 2255 motion. However, even if the court assumes See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d petitioner's position is correct, petitioner would not be entitled to relief. collateral review. Cir. 2005).2 ACCORDINGLY: 1. Petitioner Norberto Arredondo's second motion to vacate, Booker is not retroactive to cases on United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9th set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 is Petitioner argues that the court should hold the instant motion in abeyance pending resolution by the Supreme Court of Washington v. Recuenco, No. 05-83. The court denies this request. The issue before the Supreme Court in Recuenco does not address the applicability of Booker to cases on collateral review. 2 2 Case 1:06-cv-00056-REC Document 2 Filed 01/24/2006 Page 3 of 3 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 dismissed. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for respondent. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 668554 January 23, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?