Sanchez v. USA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DENIED and DISMISSED. A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/10/14. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD SANCHEZ,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14CV43 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Edward Sanchez=s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255. The motion is a Asecond or successive motion@ within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. '' 2244 & 2255 but has not been certified by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as required by the AEDPA. As a result, the motion will be denied
and dismissed.
On March 6, 2009, movant pled guilty to the offense of possession with intent to distribute
fifty grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. On September 11, 2009, the
Court sentenced movant to 135 months= imprisonment. Movant did not appeal. On September
7, 2010, movant filed a motion to vacate under ' 2255. The Court denied the motion on its merits
on October 26, 2011. See Sanchez v. U.S., 1:10CV138 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). On February 29,
2012, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied movant=s application for a certificate of
appealability. Sanchez v. U.S., No. 11-3521 (8th Cir. 2012).
On October 3, 2013, movant filed a motion in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. He labeled it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. '
2241. The Texas court found that the relief requested was only available under ' 2255, and the

court warned petitioner that if he did not withdraw it, the court would construe it as a ' 2255
motion and transfer it to this Court. Movant did not withdraw the motion; thus, the motion was
transferred to this Court and it was construed as a motion to vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See Sanchez v. U.S., 1:13CV167 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). In movant’s second motion to vacate,
movant alleged that his conviction was unlawful because the indictment was invalid, and he seeks
early release from confinement. The Court denied movant’s motion to vacate and dismissed the
motion as successive. Movant did not appeal the dismissal.
In the instant motion before the Court, received by this Court on April 7, 2014, movant
asserts that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, and thus, he seeks
review of his conviction and release under the Supreme Court case of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133
S.Ct. 1924 (2013).
In McQuiggin, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner filing a first-time federal habeas
petition could overcome the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(d)(1) upon a
showing of Aactual innocence@ under the Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995), standard. See
McQuiggin, 133 S.Ct. at 1928. Critically, the holding in McQuiggin was based on the Supreme
Court's conclusion that Congress, through its silence on the issue, had not intended to eliminate the
pre-existing equitable Aactual innocence@ exception for an untimely first-time filer. See id. at 1934.
On the other hand, the Court expressly recognized that Congress, through ' 2244(b), had intended
to Amodify@ and Aconstrain[ ]@ the Aactual innocence@ exception with respect to second or
successive petitions. See id. at 1933B34. Nothing in McQuiggin authorizes a court to ignore or
bypass these constraints.

2

Title 28 U.S.C. ' 2255(h) requires that a movant seeking to file a second or successive
motion must obtain permission from the Circuit Court before filing such motion in the District
Court. Absent certification from the appellate court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant
movant’s requested relief. Because movant does not have permission from the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals to file this action, the Court will dismiss it without further proceedings.
Finally, movant has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the motion is successive. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. ' 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DENIED and DISMISSED.
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2014.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3