Martinez v. United States of America

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/9/2017: DENYING 1 Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); DISMISSING action with prejudice, and DENYING certificate of appealability. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Rafael Augusto Martinez at USP Coleman II) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RAFAEL AUGUSTO MARTINEZ,

v.

Petitioner,

Case No. 17-CV-792-JPS-JPS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAFAEL AUGUSTO MARTINEZ,

Case No. 96-CR-58-1-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendant.
On June 5, 2017, Rafael Augusto Martinez (“Martinez”) filed two
identical sets of documents. These included a “motion to reduce sentence,”
referencing the resentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a brief in
support of a “petition under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) for resentencing,”
and various exhibits. See 17-CV-792 (Docket #1 and #2); 96-CR-58-1 (Docket
#332 and #333). The Clerk of the Court, understandably confused by
receiving the same materials twice, docketed one set in Martinez’s criminal
case, and the other as a separate habeas action.
Assuming Martinez truly wanted to file a habeas action, it must be
dismissed at the outset. The Seventh Circuit teaches that “[u]nder the Anti–
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), prisoners are
entitled to a single unencumbered opportunity to pursue collateral review.

The AEDPA prohibits prisoners from filing a second or successive § 2255
motion unless they obtain certification to do so from the court of appeals.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).” Vitrano v. United States, 643 F.3d 229, 233 (7th Cir.
2011). As the Court explained to Martinez in June 2016, he has filed more
than one prior motion for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 96-CR58 (Docket #330). The Court further explained how Martinez should go
about seeking a certification from the Court of Appeals. Id. Martinez has
not provided the Court with the required certification. The Court must
therefore deny Martinez habeas relief and dismiss the pending habeas case.1
Returning to Martinez’s criminal case, his request for Section 3582
relief must be denied, as the Court did with his prior similar requests. See
(Docket #265 and #318). Martinez was sentenced to life imprisonment for
cocaine and crack distribution. (Docket #142 and #143). As applied to
Martinez, Section 3582(c)(2) provides that his sentence may be reduced only
when his “sentencing range . . . has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission[.]” Using the current, and most favorable, drug
quantity sentencing guidelines, his guideline range remains what it was at
the sentencing hearing—life in prison. Martinez’s motion pursuant to
Section 3582 must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Rafael Augusto Martinez’s motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to Section 2255, in case
number 17-CV-792 (Docket #1), be and the same is hereby DENIED;

The Court went through this same process with Martinez in 2012: he filed
a successive habeas motion which was dismissed, and his appeal of that dismissal
was itself dismissed for Martinez’s failure to pay the filing fee. See 12-CV-585. The
Court will, therefore, deny him a certificate of appealability on his habeas petition.
1

Page 2 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that case number 17-CV-792 be and the
same is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability in case
number 17-CV-792 be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rafael Augusto
Martinez’s motion to reduce his sentence, in case number 96-CR-58-1
(Docket #332), be and the same is hereby DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly in
case number 17-CV-792.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3