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. Felix

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 6, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOE ANTHONY GOMEZ FELIX, Defendant-Petitioner.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITIONER'S § 2255 MOTION ECF NO. 200

          Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

         On June 24, 2016[1], Petitioner Joe Anthony Gomez Felix (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se “Motion to Vacate Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under: 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” ECF No. 200. In his motion, Petitioner asserts that Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), may impact the length of his sentence. Id. Specifically, Petitioner requests that the Court provide him with copies of his court records, allow him 90 days to file a brief in support of his motion, and allow for “the timely recording of his 2255 motion.” Id. at 4.[2]

         On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order referring Petitioner's motion to the Federal Defender's Office (“FDO”), and setting an initial briefing schedule. ECF No. 203.

         On September 19, 2016, the FDO filed notice that it would not supplement Petitioner's motion and requested withdrawal as counsel in this case. ECF No. 204.

         For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for his court records and sentencing transcript and DENIES his request for 90 days to file a brief in support of his motion.

         BACKGROUND

         On January 16, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty to the single-count Superseding Information, which charged Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1963(a). ECF Nos. 159 (plea agreement) & 167; Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) ¶ 1.

         Pursuant to sections 3D1.4(a)-(c) and 2E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG” or “Guidelines”), Petitioner's total base offense level was 35. PSR ¶ 45. Application Note 1 to USSG § 2E1.1 instructs that when there is more than one underlying offense for a racketeering charge, each underlying offense is to be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction. Id. ¶ 38. In Petitioner's case, there were three distinct underlying offenses: aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Id. ¶ 39. According to the multiple count adjustment rules of USSG § 3D1.4, two levels were added to the highest offense level (33) for the underlying murder conspiracy offense. Id. ¶ 45. Four levels were added for Petitioner's leadership role in the offense pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(a). Id. ¶ 48. Petitioner's offense level decreased by three for his acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b). Id. ¶¶ 42-43. The total offense level was 36. Id. ¶ 54. The Guidelines range for a defendant with an offense level of 36 and a criminal history category of IV (based on a criminal history score of 9) is 262 to 327 months. Id. at 26. However, in accordance with the provisions of Petitioner's plea agreement, which was pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c), the parties agreed to a 151-month sentence in this case. Id.

         On May 6, 2016, this Court sentenced Petitioner to a 151-month term of imprisonment. ECF Nos. 189 & 191. Petitioner did not appeal his conviction or sentence.

         LEGAL FRAMEWORK

         A. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Section 2255 provides four grounds upon which a sentencing court may grant relief to a petitioning in-custody defendant:

[1] that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; or
[2] that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; or
[3] that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized ...

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.