Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Castillo

August 7, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIGUEL CASTILLO, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

On May 21, 2008, Defendant Castillo filed a "Motion to Dismiss under the Non-Violent Offender Act of 2003 §2255" (00cr1502, Doc. # 51)in this district court.

On July 7, 2008, Defendant Castillo filed an identical "Motion to Dismiss under the Non-Violent Offender Act of 2003 §2255" (08cv1289, Doc. # 1) in the District Court for the Central District of California. This motion subsequently was transferred to this district court for consideration.

FACTS

On August 14, 2000, the Defendant Castillo entered a plea of guilty to Count one of an Indictment charging him with Conspiracy to Smuggle Merchandise and to Sell Unapproved Drugs in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771 and 545 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 333(a)(2).

On November 3, 2000, Defendant Castillo was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 24 months followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000.00.

On December 28, 2000, Defendant Castillo surrendered to USP Lompoc to serve his sentence.

On April 21, 2001, Defendant Castillo was placed on escape status by the Bureau of Prisons after it was determined that he was not within the boundaries of the prison camp. On April 24, 2001, a criminal complaint for escape and a warrant of arrest were issued for Defendant Castillo in the Central District of California.

On July 18, 2007, Defendant Castillo was arrested in Fallbrook, California based upon the escape arrest warrant. Defendant Castillo was arraigned in San Diego on the escape charge.

On July 13, 2007, the criminal complaint for escape was dismissed. Defendant Castillo remained in custody to serve the remainder of the 24 months sentence imposed in 00cr1502-K.

Defendant moves the court for an order of release on the grounds that he has served his term of imprisonment. Defendant further contends that he is entitled to early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3624 pursuant to a good time policy.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that "A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress 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 that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence."

A petition under § 2255 can test only the propriety of the sentence imposed, not the manner of execution. United States v. Gidding, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). "Review of the execution of a sentence may be had through petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Id. This court has jurisdiction to treat the "Motion to Dismiss" under § 2255 as a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.