Bedford v. USA

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 2/17/2015 as to Lynn G. Bedford VACATING the Order Denying Motion to Vacate; DISMISSING the defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 for lack of jurisdiction re 2:02-CR-00268 MCE. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:02-cr-00468-MCE-CMK Plaintiffs, v. ORDER LYNN G. BEDFORD, Defendant. 16 17 On January 13, 2005, Defendant pled guilty to one count of making a false 18 statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The Court sentenced Defendant to 60 19 months of probation on June 7, 2005. Subsequently, on June 7, 2010, Defendant filed a 20 motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This Court denied that 21 Motion as untimely pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2254(f)(4), and Defendant appealed. 23 A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s decision because motions to 24 vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are only available to “a prisoner in custody.” United 25 States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 2014). According to that court, Defendant 26 was not “in custody” when he filed his motion, and this Court thus lacked jurisdiction to 27 entertain Defendant’s motion. Id. at 564-65. The appellate court then remanded with 28 instructions for this Court to dismiss Defendant’s motion. Id. at 565. Accordingly, this 1 1 Court now VACATES its decision (ECF No. 743) denying Defendant’s Motion to Vacate 2 (ECF No. 681) and DISMISSES the Motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of the 3 Court is directed to file this Order in both the above-captioned case and in the 4 companion civil case, 2:10-cv-01402-MCE-CKM. Both cases shall remain closed. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 17, 2015 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?