Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    United States v. Sanchez, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order denies Raymond Sanchez's petition challenging his sentence but remands to the district court with instructions. It summarizes that Sanchez filed a petition relying on a Supreme Court case to collaterally challenge his mandatory minimum sentence, but the district court denied it for lacking jurisdiction except under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court affirms the jurisdictional ruling but remands for the district court to dismiss the petition without prejudice rather than denying it on the merits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Sanchez, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views5 pages
    This order denies Raymond Sanchez's petition challenging his sentence but remands to the district court with instructions. It summarizes that Sanchez filed a petition relying on a Supreme Court case to collaterally challenge his mandatory minimum sentence, but the district court denied it for lacking jurisdiction except under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court affirms the jurisdictional ruling but remands for the district court to dismiss the petition without prejudice rather than denying it on the merits.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-8088

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order denies Raymond Sanchez's petition challenging his sentence but remands to the district court with instructions. It summarizes that Sanchez filed a petition relying on a Supreme Court case to collaterally challenge his mandatory minimum sentence, but the district court denied it for lacking jurisdiction except under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court affirms the jurisdictional ruling but remands for the district court to dismiss the petition without prejudice rather than denying it on the merits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    24 views5 pages

    United States v. Sanchez, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order denies Raymond Sanchez's petition challenging his sentence but remands to the district court with instructions. It summarizes that Sanchez filed a petition relying on a Supreme Court case to collaterally challenge his mandatory minimum sentence, but the district court denied it for lacking jurisdiction except under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court affirms the jurisdictional ruling but remands for the district court to dismiss the petition without prejudice rather than denying it on the merits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 5

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    June 12, 2014

    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RAYMOND DUANE SANCHEZ,

    No. 13-8088
    (D.C. No. 2:05-CR-00239-NDF-1)
    (D. Wyo.)

    Defendant - Appellant.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    On September 23, 2013, Appellant Raymond Duane Sanchez filed a pro se
    pleading styled Petition for Redress of Grievance. Relying on Alleyne v. United

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.

    States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), Sanchez collaterally challenged the mandatory
    minimum sentence he received for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). 1 But see In re
    Payne, 733 F.3d 1027, 1029-30 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding Alleyne does not apply
    retroactively to cases on collateral review). The district court concluded
    Sanchezs claim must be brought in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255
    because it implicated the validity of his sentence. See United States v. Nelson,
    465 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (A 2255 motion is one claiming the right
    to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
    Constitution or laws of the United States . . . or is otherwise subject to collateral
    attack. (quotation omitted)). The court, however, declined to recharacterize
    Sanchezs petition as a motion filed pursuant to 2255, in part, because it would
    likely be barred by the one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)

    (setting forth a one-year statute of limitations for 2255 motions).


    The district court concluded there was no jurisdictional basis for Sanchezs
    petition other than 2255 and denied it for that reason. The court, however, then
    proceeded to examine Sanchezs Alleyne claim and concluded it lacked merit. It
    relied on this conclusion as an alternate basis to deny the petition.
    1

    Sanchez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in


    violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), and received a 180-month term of incarceration
    because he qualified as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). In
    his direct appeal, he argued one of the prior convictions used to support the
    application of the Armed Career Criminal Act was not a crime of violence.
    United States v. Sanchez, 226 F. Appx 852, 853 (10th Cir. 2007). This court
    considered the argument but affirmed Sanchezs sentence. Id. at 854.
    -2-

    On appeal, Sanchez challenges the denial of his petition, arguing the


    district court erred by recharacterizing it as a 2255 motion and, alternatively,
    that the jurisdictional basis of his petition lies in the Petition Clause of the First
    Amendment. 2 On his first point, Sanchez is simply incorrect. The district court
    specifically refused to recharacterize his motion as one brought pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. 2255. Because Sanchezs conviction became final many years before he
    filed the instant petition, the claim he seeks to raise would likely be untimely
    under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f). Thus, the district courts decision to not
    recharacterize the petition was not an abuse of discretion. United States v.
    Valadez-Camarena, 402 F.3d 1259, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding district court
    did not err by refusing to recharacterize defendants motion as one pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. 2255 because such a motion would, at least facially, be barred as
    untimely (quotation omitted)).
    As to Sanchezs second argument, this court reviews jurisdictional issues
    de novo. Full Life Hospice, LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1016 (10th Cir.
    2013). It is well-settled that [t]he exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a
    [federal] judgment and sentence, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, is that
    provided for in 28 U.S.C. 2255. Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178
    (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted). Thus, Sanchezs assertion that jurisdiction
    over his petition arises under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment can be
    2

    Sanchezs request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.


    -3-

    quickly rejected. The AEDPA provides a prisoner with a reasonably adequate


    opportunity to pursue a post-conviction challenge to his conviction or sentence
    and, thus, does not violate the First Amendments right of access to the courts.
    Hill v. Dailey, 557 F.3d 437, 439 (10th Cir. 2009). Because of the jurisdictional
    limitation imposed by the AEDPA, a federal prisoner must use 2255 to
    collaterally attack his conviction or sentence unless he can show that 2255 is
    either inadequate or ineffective. Id. at 439-40; see also Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d
    1070, 1073-74 (10th Cir. 2010) (discussing the circumstances under which 2255
    could be inadequate or ineffective). Because Sanchez has failed to show that
    2255 is inadequate or ineffective, the district court did not err in concluding it
    lacked jurisdiction to consider his Petition for Redress of Grievance.
    Although we affirm the district courts jurisdictional ruling, we conclude
    the district court erred by addressing Sanchezs claims on the merits and denying
    his petition with prejudice on that alternative basis. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for
    a Better Envt, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998) (The requirement that jurisdiction be
    established as a threshold matter spring[s] from the nature and limits of the
    judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception.).

    -4-

    Accordingly, we remand the matter to the district court with instructions to


    vacate its order dated October 21, 2013, denying Sanchezs petition and enter a
    new order dismissing Sanchezs petition without prejudice.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge

    -5-

    You might also like