MOREIRA-QUIJIJE v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/8/18. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES DIST. COURT
FOR THE E. DIST. OF N.Y.,
EDISON IVAN MOREIRA-QUIJIJE,
Civil Action No. 17-5756 (NLH)
IT APPEARING THAT:
Petitioner Edison Ivan Moreira-Quijije (“Petitioner”)
previously filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 before this Court.
(ECF No. 1.)
In his Petition, Petitioner requested that the Court
“expedite the motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), which, pursuant to Amendment 782.”
(Pet. ¶ 15.)
The Court determined that Petitioner filed a Motion for
Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) with his
sentencing court, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, in 2015.
U.S. v. Moreira-Quijije,
Crim. Action No. 11-380 (E.D.N.Y.).
While that motion was pending, Petitioner filed the
instant habeas Petition, which appeared to be a request to
expedite a decision by the Eastern District of New York.
the time he filed the instant Petition, the District Court in
the Eastern District had granted his motion for a sentence
Because it appeared that he had received the only
relief he was seeking, i.e. a decision on the sentence reduction
motion, the Court dismissed the instant Petition as moot.
Nos 2, 3.)
However, the Court permitted Petitioner to file a
motion for reconsideration, to the extent the Court had
misconstrued the nature of Petitioner’s claims and/or his
Petitioner thereafter filed such a request.
In his supplemental request, Petitioner is now seeking
that “the court of the Eastern District of New York resentence
him to ‘time-served,’ in accordance with section 3582(c)(2) of
Title 18 of the U.S.C. and Amendments 782 and 788 of the
(ECF No. 4.)
Petitioner’s request for reconsideration is denied.
motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582
should be filed with the sentencing court, as Petitioner has
See Gregory v. Grondolsky, 365 F. App'x 326, 327
(3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Bullock, 532 F. App'x 179, 180
(3d Cir. 2013) (“[u]nder § 3582(c)(2), a sentencing court may
reduce an imposed sentence based on a subsequent amendment to
the Guidelines…”)(emphasis added).
If he wishes to appeal that decision, or file a new § 3582
motion, this Court is not the appropriate venue.
Any appeal of
the Eastern District’s decision must be filed with the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, and any additional motions pursuant to
§ 3582 should be filed with the sentencing court.
To the extent Petitioner wishes to challenge his
sentence as-imposed in any other way, a § 2241 petition before
this Court is not the appropriate mechanism for doing so.
United States v. Walker, 980 F.Supp. 144, 145–46 (E.D.Pa. 1997
(challenges to a sentence as-imposed should be brought under §
2255, while challenges to the manner in which a sentence is
executed should be brought under § 2241); Descamps v. Warden
Lewisburg USP, 617 F. App'x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2015) (§ 2255
motion is filed in the sentencing court; § 2241 petition is
filed in the district of confinement).
Nothing in his
submissions suggest that Petitioner is challenging the execution
of his sentence.
For these reasons, Petitioner’s request for
reconsideration is denied.
Dated: January 8, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey
An appropriate order follows.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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?