Vallejo v. United States of America

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/25/2014 DENYING 1 Movant's MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). Action DISMISSED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-C-1051
(Criminal Case No. 05-Cr-240)

TIMOTHY VALLEJO,
Movant,

DECISION AND ORDER

The Movant, Timothy Vallejo (“Vallejo”), was sentenced to life in prison by
this Court on January 26, 2010, after Vallejo pleaded guilty to a RICO conspiracy in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962(d) along with other defendants. (ECF Nos.
1194, 1732.) Vallejo challenges this disposition by way of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing
that said sentence is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012), which held that
mandatory life sentences without parole administered to those under the age of 18
violate that Amendment.
Miller applies if a movant was (1) younger than eighteen years old at the time
of the crimes, which Vallejo was; and (2) subject to a mandatory sentence of life in
prison without the possibility of parole, which can be determined as a matter of law by
reference to legal documents such as statutes, sentencing guidelines, and court

documents. See Evans-Garcia v. United States, 744 F.3d 235, 240 (1st Cir. 2014)
(citing Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469).
Vallejo concedes that a non-mandatory life sentence passes constitutional
scrutiny but argues that because this Court was required to give him a life sentence, it
was indeed mandatory and therefore does not pass constitutional muster. Vallejo was
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962(d). A RICO count contains its own
unique sentencing structure, in that it allows the court to impose a maximum sentence
of 20 years which can be increased if the underlying predicate act carries a maximum
sentence that is longer. Because, argues Vallejo, his predicate act was first degree
murder — which requires a sentence of life, this Court was required to impose a life
sentence and, therefore, violated Miller.
The Court disagrees. Under the scheme of sentencing presented by these
provisions the Court has the discretion, after analysis of the appropriate sentencing
factors, to sentence a juvenile defendant anywhere along the sentencing scale up to
life. It was not required to impose a life sentence. The RICO statutory formula treats
a first degree intentional murder predicate act as a guide for determining what a
maximum sentence could be under RICO law, given that predicate act. The RICO
statute is not 18 U.S.C. § 1111.

They are separate offenses containing different

elements. RICO merely incorporates 18 U.S.C. § 1111 to establish a high-end range of
sentence for a RICO charge. The Court has the discretion to sentence a defendant
anywhere in that range. It did so with Vallejo. It was not required to impose the
-2-

sentence that it did, and therefore Vallejo’s motion must be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Vallejo’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1) is DENIED;
This action is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly;
and
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of June, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-