Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. LOPEZ-VALENCIA, CR 14-1153-PHX-SMM (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20150724749 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN M. McNAMEE , Senior District Judge . On July 13, 2015, Movant Erasmo Lopez-Valencia, who is confined in the Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility in Post, Texas, filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Court will summarily deny the Motion. Movant pled guilty to Re-Entry of Removed Alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), with sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1). On Decem
More

ORDER

On July 13, 2015, Movant Erasmo Lopez-Valencia, who is confined in the Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility in Post, Texas, filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Court will summarily deny the Motion.

Movant pled guilty to Re-Entry of Removed Alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), with sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). On December 11, 2014, the Court sentenced Movant to a 27-month term of imprisonment followed by 3 years on supervised release.

On June 29, 2015, Movant filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the judgment of conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed the district courts that they should not entertain § 2255 motions while there is a direct appeal pending in either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. United States v. Deeb, 944 F.2d 545, 548 (9th Cir. 1991); Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997); Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Advisory Comm. Note (1976) (absent extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal justice precludes a district court from considering a § 2255 motion while review of the direct appeal is still pending). Accordingly, Movant's § 2255 Motion will be denied without prejudice pending resolution of Movant's direct appeal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 36 in CR 14-1153-PHX-SMM) is denied and that the civil action opened in connection with this Motion (CV 15-1320-PHX-SMM (JFM)) is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer