Rivera-Gallegos v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered two pro se motions filed by a defendant to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, one of which challenged the classification of his assault conviction as a felony. The court denied the first motion on the merits, dismissed the second motion as time-barred, and denied a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Defendant's first Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 216)“Accordingly, Defendant’s first Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 216) is Hereby Denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the legal standard for 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), noting that the statute distinguishes between misdemeanor and felony assault based on the presence of physical contact. The court relied on the jury instructions, which explicitly required the government to prove 'physical contact,' and the resulting guilty verdict to conclude that the jury necessarily found the elements of a felony offense. This reasoning is legally sound and supported by the record recited in the order. |
Dismissal of Defendant's second Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 218)“Thus, Defendant’s second Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 218) is Hereby Dismissed.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the one-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). The order recites that the conviction became final on November 1, 2017, and the second motion was filed on December 3, 2018, which is more than one year later. The court noted that the defendant provided no reason why the claim could not have been filed timely, making the dismissal appropriate. |
Denial of Certificate of Appealability“Additionally, the Court Denies Defendant a certificate of appealability, as Defendant has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability, requiring a 'substantial showing' of a denial of constitutional rights. Given that the court found the defendant's substantive claim regarding the felony classification to be without merit based on the jury's findings, the denial of the COA follows logically from the denial of the underlying motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the legal issues raised. It correctly identifies the statute of limitations issue for the second motion and correctly applies the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) to the first motion by relying on the specific jury instructions and the verdict. The reasoning is complete for the issues presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case Nos.: 12CR3814-JLS 18CV2059-JLS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S 14 ARTURO RIVERA-GALLEGOS, MOTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 15 Defendant. TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE and 16 DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 17 APPEALABILITY 18 [ECF Nos. 216 and 218] 19 20 On September 5, 2018, Defendant Rivera-Gallegos, proceeding pro se, filed a 21 Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in 22 Federal Custody (ECF No. 216). On December 3, 2018, Defendant filed a second Motion 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal 24 Custody (ECF No. 218). No briefing schedule was imposed, and Plaintiff has not filed any 25 response. Defendant has been released from custody since the filing of his motions, but 26 there is a supervised release violation petition pending. ECF No. 219. Therefore, collateral 27 consequences continue to result from the sentence imposed in this matter and the Court 28 does not consider the motions to be mooted by Defendant’s release from custody. 1 Defendant’s second motion was filed more than one year after his conviction became 2 final1 and is therefore untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).2 Defendant has 3 presented no reason why the claim raised in the second motion could not have been timely 4 filed, thus Defendant’s second motion will be dismissed as time-barred. 5 Turning to Defendant’s first motion, Defendant claims that his offense conduct did 6 not constitute a felony assault under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Following a jury trial, 7 Defendant was convicted of one count of assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 8 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and one count of being a removed alien found in the United States in 9 violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). ECF No. 179. Defendant was sentenced to a term 10 of imprisonment of 78 months on each count, to run concurrently. Id. Defendant appealed 11 the final judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction on June 6, 2017. ECF 12 No. 215. 13 Defendant contends that his conduct on the date of his arrest was an act of civil 14 disobedience and can only constitute a misdemeanor offense under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). 15 While it is true that Section 111(a)(1) describes both misdemeanor and felony offenses, the 16 offense charged against Defendant was a felony and required proof of physical contact. 17 Section 111(a)(1) prohibits the forcible assault, resistance, opposition, impediment, 18 intimidation or interference with a federal officer engaged in the performance of official 19 duties. When the acts in violation of the statute constitute only simple assault, the offense 20 is designated a misdemeanor. However, “where such acts involve physical contact with 21 the victim of that assault…[the person shall be] imprisoned not more than 8 years.” 22 23 24 1 Defendant’s petition for rehearing of the order affirming his conviction was denied August 2, 2017. 25 Thus, Defendant’s conviction became final on November 1, 2017, ninety-one days thereafter. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003) (recognizing that a federal judgment becomes final when, if a 26 petitioner does not seek certiorari, the time for filing a certiorari petition expires); Sup.Ct.R.13 (establishing 90-day period for filing petition for certiorari). 27 2 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1) establishes a 1-year period of limitation running from “the date on which the 28 1 In this case, the jury was instructed as follows: 2 The defendant is charged in the indictment with assault on a federal officer in violation of Section 111(a) of Title 18 of the 3 United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty 4 of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 5 6 First, the defendant forcibly assaulted United States Border Patrol Agent J. Ambriz; and 7 8 Second, the defendant did so while Agent Ambriz was engaged in, or on account of his official duties; and 9 10 Third, the defendant made physical contact.
11 There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes 12 another.
13 Jury Instructions, ECF No. 140 at 13. 14 15 Having returned a guilty verdict in light of these instructions, the jury necessarily 16 found the Defendant’s conduct constituted a felony offense under Section 111(a)(1). Thus, 17 the Court finds Defendant’s claim that the offense should be designated a misdemeanor to 18 be without merit. 19 Accordingly, Defendant’s first Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, 20 or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 216) is Hereby Denied. The 21 Court finds Defendant’s second motion to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). Thus, 22 Defendant’s second Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 23 Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 218) is Hereby Dismissed. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || Additionally, the Court Denies Defendant a certificate of appealability, as Defendant has 2 ||not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: August 9, 2021 tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28