The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Petitioner Susan Marie Hogan's ("Petitioner") Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 51.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
On April 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. No. 38.] Petitioner alleged that her counsel improperly advised her at sentencing, that her counsel failed to object to the sentencing enhancements she received, and that the sentencing enhancements violated her Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. [See generally id.] On August 3, 2007, the Court denied the Petition, finding that Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement. (See Aug. 3, 2007 Order at 8.)
The Court also found that Petitioner's counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the sentencing enhancements because Petitioner stipulated to the enhancements in her plea agreement. (Id. at 9.) In addition, the Court found that the imposition of the sentencing enhancements did not violate Petitioner's right to trial by jury because Petitioner stipulated to the facts that were the basis for enhancing her sentence, and Petitioner's sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. (Id. at 10.)
Although the instant Motion for Reconsideration does not clearly indicate the grounds on which Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order, she appears to seek reconsideration of the merits of her § 2255 Petition. She requests that the Court "re-examine the claims and re-consider." (Mot. at 2.) She states that the Court erred in applying the sentencing enhancements, and that the enhancements resulted in a sentence that was "outside the proper bounds" of the Court's "realm of discretion." (Id. at 1.)
"[A] motion [to reconsider] that seeks to revisit the federal court's denial on the merits of a claim for relief should be treated as a successive habeas petition." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005); see also Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). "Before presenting a second or successive motion, the moving party must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255, para. 8." R. Governing § 2255 Proc., Rule 9; see also United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998).
In her Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner seeks to revisit the portion of the Court's Order finding that the sentencing enhancements were properly imposed. (See Mot. at 1.) Because Petitioner seeks to revisit the merits of the Court's Order denying her Petition, the Court treats her Motion for Reconsideration as a successive habeas petition. See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 534. Petitioner did not obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive section 2255 motion, and thus deprived this Court of jurisdiction to reconsider her claims on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a) & (b)(3), 2255; R. Governing § 2255 Proc. for the U.S. Dist. Ct., Rule 9.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...