Medina-Martinez v. USA

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The Government's Motion to Dismiss (CV Dkt. 3) is GRANTED. Petitioner's § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Set Aside his Sentence 1 (CR Dkt. 822) is DEN IED. Petitioner's Motion to Stay 5 is DENIED. Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MAURICIO MEDINA-MARTINEZ,

Case No. 1:16-CV-00289-EJL
1:04-CR-00257-EJL

Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Motion to Stay. (CV Dkt. 1, 5.)1
The Government has filed a Motion to Dismiss. (CV Dkt. 3.) Having fully reviewed the
record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the
briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the
Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by
oral argument, the Motions shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral
argument.

1

In this Order, the Court will use (CR Dkt. ) when citing to the criminal case (1:04-cr00257-EJL) and (CV Dkt. ) when citing to the civil case (1:16-cv-00289-EJL).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2005, Petitioner, Mauricio Medina-Martinez, plead guilty to
three counts in the Superseding Indictment charging Conspiracy to Distribute
Methamphetamine, Illegal Alien in Possession of a Firearm, and Illegal Reentry. (CR
Dkt. 484.) This Court sentenced Mr. Medina-Martinez on January 13, 2006 to a total term
of 262 months imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release. (CR Dkt.
562, 595.)
An appeal was filed during which the parties filed a joint motion for remand for
the purpose of resentencing which was granted. (CR Dkt. 586, 677.) The remand for
resentencing was for the purpose of correcting the record with regard to the criminal
history calculation. (CR Dkt. 683.) The resentencing hearing was held on July 12, 2007
where this Court concluded the prior conviction in question did not qualify for the two
additional criminal history points and resentenced Mr. Medina-Martinez to a total term of
imprisonment of 235 months. (CR Dkt. 687.) Mr. Medina-Martinez filed a notice of
appeal of his resentencing which was later dismissed. (CR Dkt. 691, 724.)
On August 5, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation for reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782.
(CR Dkt. 812.) This Court granted the reduction resulting in a total sentence of
incarceration of 188 months. (CR Dkt. 813.)
On June 27, 2016, Mr. Medina-Martinez filed the instant § 2255 Motion seeking
to correct his sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015). (CR Dkt. 822) (CV Dkt. 1.) The Government has filed a
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Motion to Dismiss arguing Johnson does not apply to Mr. Medina-Martinez’s case. (CV
Dkt. 3.) Mr. Medina-Martinez filed a Motion to Stay any ruling on his § 2255 Motion
until after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Beckles v. United States. (CV Dkt. 5.)
DISCUSSION
1.

Timeliness of the § 2255 Motion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner in custody under sentence may move

the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence on the
ground that:
[T]he sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such
sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by
law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack....
28 U.S.C. § 2255. A petitioner seeking relief under § 2255 must file his motion with the
one-year statute of limitations set forth in § 2255(f). That section provides that a motion
is timely if it is filed within one year of “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.” §
2255(f)(3).
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson which was
later made retroactive. Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016). Therefore,
motions for relief under § 2255 has to be filed within one year of the Johnson ruling. The
§ 2255 Motion in this case was received by the Court and filed on June 27, 2016 which is
one day over the date for filing Johnson based § 2255 Motions. (CV Dkt. 1.) The Motion,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

however, was signed and dated by Mr. Medina-Martinez on June 22, 2016. Given Mr.
Medina-Martinez’s pro se and custody status, the Court deems the Motion to be timely.
2.

Motion to Dismiss
The Supreme Court in Johnson held that the residual clause of the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which imposes a minimum 15 year
sentence for individuals who had three or more prior convictions for a “violent felony,”
to be unconstitutionally vague and violated due process. See Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 255760. The “residual clause” defined “violent felony” to include a felony that “involves
conduct that presents a serious potential physical risk of physical injury to another.” See
id. The two point enhancement applied to Mr. Medina-Martinez in this case, which is the
basis for his § 2255 Motion, was not imposed under the ACCA. Instead, the two level
enhancement was imposed under Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1) which provides
that if “a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed, increase by 2 levels.”
United States Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1). Mr. Medina-Martinez pled guilty to
illegal possession of a firearm, so § 2D1.1(b)(1)’s application is clear. The Johnson
decision does not apply to the enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) or to Mr. MedinaMartinez’s sentencing. Barajas v. United States, 2016 WL 4721481, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Sept. 8, 2016) (citing cases). For these reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is
granted. (CV Dkt. 3.)
Mr. Medina-Martinez’s Motion to Stay asks that this Court refrain from deciding
this case until the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Beckles. (CV Dkt. 5.) The Beckles
case pending before the Supreme Court concerns the open question of whether or not the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

reasoning in Johnson invalidates the “residual clause” in § 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing
Guidelines. See United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016); United
States v. Willis, 795 F.3d 986, 996 (9th Cir. 2015). The two level enhancement applied in
this case under § 2D1.1(b)(1), however, does not contain a “residual clause” akin to those
found in either the ACCA or § 4B1.2(a)(2). Thus, the Beckles decision will not apply to
Mr. Medina-Martinez’s sentencing. The Motion to Stay is denied.
Further, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability (COA). “The
district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. A COA
should issue as to those claims on which the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied if
“jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of [the] constitutional
claims” or “conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, Mr. Medina-Martinez has not shown the
deprivation of any constitutional right as no reasonable jurist would disagree that Johnson
does not apply to this case.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Government’s Motion to Dismiss (CV Dkt. 3) is GRANTED.

2.

Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Set Aside his Sentence
(CR Dkt. 822) (CV Dkt. 1) is DENIED.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

3.

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (CV Dkt. 5) is DENIED.

4.

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.

DATED: October 19, 2016

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6