Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Madriz, 1:13-cr-00175-LJO. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180711940 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS (ECF Nos. 97 and 98) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Jose Ernesto Valencia Madriz ("Madriz" or "Petitioner") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. On July 21, 2015, on the eve of trial, he pled guilty to two counts of a four-count Second Superseding Indictment: Count 3, which alleged conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; and Count 4, which alleged possession with i
More

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS (ECF Nos. 97 and 98)

Jose Ernesto Valencia Madriz ("Madriz" or "Petitioner") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. On July 21, 2015, on the eve of trial, he pled guilty to two counts of a four-count Second Superseding Indictment: Count 3, which alleged conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; and Count 4, which alleged possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. ECF Nos. 66 and 70. On October 13, 2015, he was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment, the low end of the guidelines range found applicable to Petitioner based upon the nature of the offense and Petitioner's criminal history. ECF No. 74. The judgment and commitment were entered October 21, 2015. ECF No. 75.

On May 19, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 84. On September 25, 2017, the United States moved to dismiss Petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ECF No. 91. On October 16, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss and to supply him transcripts from the change of plea hearing and from the sentencing hearing, "so that the Defendant can prepare and reply to the government's answer."1 ECF No. 95 at 2.

In an order dated November 20, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice Petitioner's request for copies of the transcripts of the plea hearing and sentencing hearing. In the same order, the Court granted Petitioner's request for extension of time to respond to the Government's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion to Vacate Sentence as Barred by the Statute of Limitations (ECF No. 91). Petitioner renewed his request in a motion dated January 22, 2018, stating that he "ha[d] not received anything in the way of transcripts or a response from the Court." ECF No. 97 at 2. Petitioner made another motion making the same request on June 22, 2018. ECF No. 98.

Because it appears that Petitioner did not receive the Court's order denying his request for transcripts of the change-of-plea hearing and the sentencing hearing, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of it on Petitioner. Petitioner shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file his opposition to the Government's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion to Vacate Sentence as Barred by the Statute of Limitations (ECF No. 91). The Government shall have 30 days from the date the opposition is filed to submit a reply.

I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's renewed requests for copies of the transcripts of the plea hearing and sentencing hearing (ECF Nos. 97 and 98) are DENIED; 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to SERVE BY U.S. MAIL a copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision And Order Re Defendant's First Motion For Extension Of Time And Motion For Transcripts (ECF No. 96) on Petitioner; 3. Petitioner's request for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an opposition to the Government's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion to Vacate Sentence as Barred by the Statute of Limitations (ECF No. 91), and the Government shall have 30 days from the date the opposition is filed to submit a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The court has previously denied Mr. Madriz's request for transcripts under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). ECF No. 77.
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