MOREIRA-QUIJIJE v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/8/18. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES DIST. COURT
:
FOR THE E. DIST. OF N.Y.,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
EDISON IVAN MOREIRA-QUIJIJE,

Civil Action No. 17-5756 (NLH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

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.
2.

(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.”
3.

(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.).
4.

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.

Since

the time he filed the instant Petition, the District Court in
the Eastern District had granted his motion for a sentence
reduction.
5.

(Id.)

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.)

(ECF

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
requested relief.
6.
4, 5.)

Petitioner thereafter filed such a request.

(ECF Nos.

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
guidelines.”
7.

(ECF No. 4.)

Petitioner’s request for reconsideration is denied.

A

motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582
should be filed with the sentencing court, as Petitioner has
already done.

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.
8.

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.

See

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.
9.

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.