The opinion of the court was delivered by: David O. Carter United States District Judge
ORDERGRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO § 2255
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Maseia Bardasian's (1)Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 3605 to Transfer Jurisdiction of His Supervised Release to the District of Nevada, (2) Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, and (3) Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to Compel the United States Probation Office and Bureau of Prisons to Provide Petitioner With Assistance to Relocate to the District of Nevada Pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007.
On June 25, 2001, pursuant to a plea agreement, Maseia Bardasian's ("Bardasian") entered a guilty plea to (1) aiding and abetting honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1341, 1346, 2; and (2) aiding and abetting money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(i), 2. On July 1, 2002, the Central District Court of California sentenced Bardasian to 46 months of imprisonment on each count, with each of the terms to be served concurrently, a three year period of supervised release, restitution in the total amount of $10,949,214.70, and a special assessment in the amount of $300. The Central District Court of California further ordered a partial payment of $9,000 within six months of judgment. On March 17, 2008, the court found Bardasian in violation of supervision, revoked supervision, sentenced him to one year and one day in prison, and reinstated supervision for a period of 24 months under the same terms and conditions previously imposed on July 1, 2002.
On or before May 27, 2008, Bardasian filed a proposed relocation of supervision from the Central District of California to the Eastern District of California. On July 16, 2008, Bardasian's proposed relocation of supervision was approved by the Eastern District of California. Bardasian was moved to a prison camp in Orangevale, California run by the Sacramento Community Corrections Office. Due to overcrowding, Bardasian is serving the remainder of his sentence in a halfway house (RRC) in Oakland, California, which is the Northern District of California. His release date is anticipated to be March 5, 2009.
On July 3, 2007, Bardasian filed the instant §2255 motion to vacate (the "Motion") requesting this court (1) transfer or compel the United States Probation Office ("USPO") and the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to transfer jurisdiction of his supervised release to the District of Nevada; (2) modify the terms of the restitution order; and (3) compel the USPO and BOP to provide defendant with assistance to relocate to the District of Nevada pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241, governing habeas corpus petitions, provides that the "... application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted or sentenced him..."
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3605 governs transfers of probation jurisdiction. This statute provides:
A court, after imposing a sentence, may transfer jurisdiction over a probationer or person on supervised release to the district court for any other district to which the person is required to proceed as a condition of his probation or release, or is permitted to proceed, with the concurrence of such court. "The statute gives a court discretion to order a transfer, but conditions transfer upon the acceptance of jurisdiction by the court to which the transfer is made, and upon selection of a district to which the probationer was required or permitted to proceed." United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d 857, 858-859 (9th Cir. 1994).
A motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence of a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 entitles a prisoner to relief:
[i]f the court finds that...there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack.
The standard of review of § 2255 petitions is "stringent" and the court "presumes earlier proceedings were correct." United States v. Nelson, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1187 (D. Kan.2001) In a successful § 2255 motion, the "defendant must show a defect in the proceedings which resulted in a 'complete miscarriage of justice.'" Id. (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974)). It is important to note that "relief is not available merely because of error that may have justified reversal on direct appeal." ...