Antonio v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se motion by a federal prisoner to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his federal sentence should run concurrently with a state sentence. The court denied the motion as untimely and moot, noting that an amended judgment had already clarified that a portion of the sentence was to run concurrently.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 denied“Accordingly, Defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the one-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The motion was filed in 2021, more than one year after the Amended Judgment was entered in 2019. Additionally, the court correctly identified that the relief sought (concurrent sentencing) had already been partially granted via the Amended Judgment, rendering the specific request for the *entire* sentence to be concurrent moot to the extent it overlaps with the existing order, or at least demonstrating that the defendant's premise (that no concurrent time was awarded) was factually incorrect based on the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statute of limitations bar under § 2255(f) based on the timeline provided (Amended Judgment 2019, Motion 2021). It also correctly notes the factual discrepancy between the defendant's claim and the existing Amended Judgment. The reliance on Dodd is appropriate for the timeliness analysis. The reliance on McCracken is persuasive but not binding, though the mootness argument is secondary to the clear statutory bar.
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 No.: 13cr1128(17) BEN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE 14 JOSE ANTONIO, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 15 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 1058] 16 17 Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a 18 sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On May 26, 2021, the motion was filed nunc pro 19 tunc to the date it was received by the Clerk of Court on February 2, 2021. 20 On March 3, 2014, the Court sentenced Defendant Jose Antonio, who was part of a 21 22-defendant case, to 110 months in custody. No appeal was filed. 22 On December 18, 2018, a letter from the United States Bureau of Prisons was filed 23 indicating that Antonio was serving a state sentence of eight years imprisonment. The 24 United States Bureau of Prisons asked the Court to indicate whether it intended the 25 federal sentence to run concurrently or consecutively. 26 On May 6, 2019, a hearing was held, during which Antonio was represented by 27 Thomas Paul Matthews, Esq., and the United States was represented by Assistant U.S. 28 1 Attorney Fred A. Sheppard, Esq. At the hearing, this Court clarified that 38 months of 2 the sentence imposed is to run concurrent with any state court sentence and 78 months of 3 the sentence imposed is to run consecutively to any state court sentence. 4 On May 13, 2019, an Amended Judgment reflecting the clarification was filed. 5 On May 15, 2019, the Amended Judgment was served on Antonio, and on May 16, 6 2019, the Amended Judgment Returned Executed was filed. 7 On April 4, 2021, The Amended Judgment Returned Executed was filed again. 8 Defendant’s § 2255 motion does not challenge the conviction, his attorney’s 9 performance, or the length of the sentence imposed. Rather, the § 2255 motion asserts 10 that a federal consecutive sentence would be a sentence “that nobody ever mentioned or 11 wanted.” Mot. at 9. Defendant asserts that he was “yelling out from the start that it was 12 supposed to be a concurrent sentence with Federal [sic].” Id. Defendant seeks to have 13 the entire federal sentence run concurrently with the state sentence. 14 Defendant is apparently unaware of the Amended Judgment entered on May 19, 15 2019, clarifying the length of the federal sentence which was to run concurrently, despite 16 said Amended Judgment having been served upon him. Defendant is also apparently 17 unaware of the May 6, 2019 hearing clarifying the sentence, or its outcome, during which 18 he was represented by counsel. 19 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) establishes a 1–year period of limitation within which a 20 federal prisoner may file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under that 21 section. That period runs from “the latest” of a number of events, which are enumerated 22 in subparagraphs (1) through (4) of that section. Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 23 354 (2005). Section 2255(f)(1) indicates the period of limitation runs from the date on 24 which the judgment of conviction becomes final. Id. at 356. Here, the § 2255 motion has 25 been filed years after the original judgment and more than one year after the amended 26 judgment. As such, the motion is denied as untimely. 27 The § 2255 motion also appears to be moot in that it requests relief that has already 28 been afforded by way of the earlier amended judgment. See e.g., McCracken v. United 1 States, No. 1:15CR79, 2021 WL 3934320, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 2, 2021) (because the 2 matters raised in her § 2255 petition are no longer “live,” the case is moot.). 3 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or 4 correct his sentence is denied. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 23, 2021 __________________________________ HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28