Mota Morfin v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255 and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/17/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case Nos.: 14CR3218-JLS
16CV1723-JLS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

DEOVIJIDO MOTA-MORFIN,

15

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO
VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT
SENTENCE and DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

Defendant.

16
17
18

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

19

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 27).

20

The Court has considered Defendant’s motion together with the record in this case and,

21

for the reasons set forth below, will dismiss Defendant’s motion as time-barred.

22

Background

23

Defendant Mota-Morfin pled guilty to the offense of attempted reentry of removed

24

alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On February 27, 2015, Defendant was sentenced to

25

a term of 37 months’ imprisonment. ECF No. 25. Defendant’s advisory sentencing

26

guideline range calculation included a 16-level enhancement pursuant to United States

27

Sentencing Guideline Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for a previous removal following a

28
1
14CR3218-JLS
16CV1723-JLS

1

conviction for a “crime of violence.” 1 ECF No. 21 at 5. Defendant filed the instant

2

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 30, 2016.

3

Analysis

4

Defendant’s motion was filed more than one year after his conviction became

5

final2 and is therefore untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Defendant has not

6

alleged or demonstrated that any of the alternative limitation periods set forth in Section

7

2255(f) are applicable with respect to his motion.

8

Defendant suggests that his motion, filed on June 30, 2016, is timely pursuant to

9

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)3 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In

10

Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career

11

Criminal Act (AACCA@) as unconstitutionally vague. However, the Supreme Court has

12

subsequently held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void for vagueness

13

challenge under the Due Process Clause and that Johnson is not applicable to the

14

advisory Guidelines. Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Therefore, Johnson

15

is not applicable in this case and thus cannot serve to extend the limitations period under

16

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).

17

Conclusion

18

The Court finds Defendant’s motion to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f).

19

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or

20

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is DISMISSED. Additionally, the

21

Court DENIES Defendant a certificate of appealability, as Defendant has not made a

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

This enhancement was based on a 2010 conviction for assault by prisoner on another with a deadly
weapon, in violation of California Penal Code Section 166.4. Presentence Report, ECF No. 21 at 8.
2
Defendant was sentenced on February 27, 2015 and he filed no notice of appeal. Thus, his
conviction became final 14 days later. See United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.
2001) (recognizing that statute of limitations for § 2255 motion began to run upon the expiration of the
time during which the defendant could have sought review by direct appeal).
3
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) proscribes a one year period of limitation from “the date on which the right
asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”
2
14CR3218-JLS
16CV1723-JLS

1

substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. §

2

2253(c)(2) (providing that a certificate shall issue “only if the applicant has made a

3

substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right”). The Clerk’s Office shall enter

4

judgment accordingly.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
14CR3218-JLS
16CV1723-JLS