Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Medina-Martinez v. United States

United States District Court, D. Idaho

October 19, 2016

MAURICIO MEDINA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Edward J. Lodge United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Motion to Stay. (CV Dkt. 1, 5.)[1]The Government has filed a Motion to Dismiss. (CV Dkt. 3.) Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Motions shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument.

         BACKGROUND

         On November 3, 2005, Petitioner, Mauricio Medina-Martinez, plead guilty to three counts in the Superseding Indictment charging Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, Illegal Alien in Possession of a Firearm, and Illegal Reentry. (CR Dkt. 484.) This Court sentenced Mr. Medina-Martinez on January 13, 2006 to a total term of 262 months imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release. (CR Dkt. 562, 595.)

         An appeal was filed during which the parties filed a joint motion for remand for the purpose of resentencing which was granted. (CR Dkt. 586, 677.) The remand for resentencing was for the purpose of correcting the record with regard to the criminal history calculation. (CR Dkt. 683.) The resentencing hearing was held on July 12, 2007 where this Court concluded the prior conviction in question did not qualify for the two additional criminal history points and resentenced Mr. Medina-Martinez to a total term of imprisonment of 235 months. (CR Dkt. 687.) Mr. Medina-Martinez filed a notice of appeal of his resentencing which was later dismissed. (CR Dkt. 691, 724.)

         On August 5, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. (CR Dkt. 812.) This Court granted the reduction resulting in a total sentence of incarceration of 188 months. (CR Dkt. 813.)

         On June 27, 2016, Mr. Medina-Martinez filed the instant § 2255 Motion seeking to correct his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015). (CR Dkt. 822) (CV Dkt. 1.) The Government has filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing Johnson does not apply to Mr. Medina-Martinez's case. (CV Dkt. 3.) Mr. Medina-Martinez filed a Motion to Stay any ruling on his § 2255 Motion until after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Beckles v. United States. (CV Dkt. 5.)

         DISCUSSION

         1. Timeliness of the § 2255 Motion

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner in custody under sentence may move the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence on the ground that:

[T]he sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack....

28 U.S.C. § 2255. A petitioner seeking relief under § 2255 must file his motion with the one-year statute of limitations set forth in § 2255(f). That section provides that a motion is timely if it is filed within one year of “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” § 2255(f)(3).

         On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson which was later made retroactive. Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016). Therefore, motions for relief under § 2255 has to be filed within one year of the Johnson ruling. The § 2255 Motion in this case was received by the Court and filed on June 27, 2016 which is one day over the date for filing Johnson based ยง 2255 Motions. (CV Dkt. 1.) The Motion, however, was signed and dated by Mr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.