United States District Court, C.D. California
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
October 18, 2006, defendant was convicted of three counts of
bank robbery in the District of Nevada and sentenced to 94
months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised
release. On February 15, 2013, defendant commenced his
initial term of supervised release. On May 16, 2013,
jurisdiction over defendant's case was transferred to
this district, where his case was randomly assigned to Judge
Margaret M. Morrow. Cr. Dkt. 2.
October 2013, defendant violated the conditions of his
supervised release by both failing to report and using
cocaine. Cr. Dkt. 66. On October 21, 2015, defendant admitted
the foregoing violations. The Court revoked his supervised
release and imposed a new sentence of 10 months imprisonment
followed by two years of supervised release. Cr. Dkt. 54. On
October 26, 2015, defendant filed an appeal of his October
21, 2015 sentence. Cr. Dkt. 59.
November 23, 2015, defendant filed a motion styled as a
motion for reconsideration of his October 21, 2015 sentence
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Cr. Dkt.
63. On December 31, 2015, the Court issued an order
indicating its intent to construe the defendant's motion
as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct defendant's
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Cr. Dkt. 66. In
its order, the Court instructed Ramseur that unless he
withdrew the motion, the Court would construe it as a §
2255 motion. Id. The order also advised Ramseur that
he could modify the motion to include any other § 2255
claims he wished to assert. Id.
January 6, 2016, this case and defendant's motion were
reassigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder. Cr. Dkt. 69. Ramseur
failed to timely withdraw the instant motion or to supplement
it in accordance with the Court's December 31, 2015
April 26, 2016, the Government filed a motion to stay the
briefing and resolution of defendant's § 2255 motion
until the appeal before the Ninth Circuit was resolved. Cr.
Dkt. 77. On July 18, 2016, the Court granted the
government's motion to stay consideration of the instant
motion pending resolution of the appeal. Cv. Dkt. 7. The
Court's order instructed the government to advise the
Court in writing within 14 days of the resolution of
defendant's appeal. Id.
October 25, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Ramseur's
sentence. United States v. Ramseur, 669 F.App'x
935 (9th Cir. 2016); Cr. Dkt. 82. The government failed to
timely advise the Court in writing that defendant's
appeal had been resolved. In light of the Ninth Circuit's
ruling there does not appear to be any remaining basis for a
stay. Accordingly, the Court hereby lifts the stay imposed on
Ramseur's § 2255 motion. Neither party has filed
additional briefing on the present motion; however, the Court
finds this matter appropriate for resolution without further
November and December 2016, while this motion was pending,
Ramseur's urine samples tested positive for cocaine on
three separate occasions in violation of the conditions of
his supervised release. Cr. Dkt. 86. On January 4, 2017, the
government filed a petition to revoke Ramseur's
supervised release again. Id.
January 9, 2017, the Court held a revocation hearing. Ramseur
admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release and
the Court sentenced him to the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons for a term of thirty days to be followed by a
two-year period of supervised release. Cr Dkt. 88. As a
condition of his supervised release, Ramseur was to be placed
in a residential reentry center (RRC) for up to six months or
until placement in a residential drug treatment program could
be secured. Id.
January 30, 2017, the defendant self-surrendered to the
United States Marshal's Service. Cr. Dkt. 91. On February
27, 2017, defendant commenced his most recent term of
supervised release and reported to the RRC as directed.
Defendant subsequently absconded from the RCC.
prisoner in custody claiming the right to be released may
move the court to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence
if he can show “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