Sanchez-Badia v. United States of America
| Guillermo A. Sanchez-Badia |
| United States of America |
| 1:2019cv22036 |
| May 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Joan A Lenard |
| Lisette M Reid |
| Prisoner: Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING #6 Motion for Reconsideration. On June 9, 2016, the Court entered Judgment against Movant in Case No. 15-20545-Cr-Lenard. (Cr-D.E. 118.) Thereafter, Movant filed his first Motion under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255, as amended July 31, 2017, asserting a single claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Case No. 17-22171-Civ-Lenard ("Sanchez-Badia I"), D.E. 10. The Court denied Movant's first 2255 Motion on the merits. (Sanchez-Badia I, D.E. 22.) On April 22, 2019, Movant filed a self-styled "Motion of Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to Rule 60(b)" on the docket in his criminal case. (Cr-D.E. 132.) Therein, Movant argued, inter alia, that "the Court committed a procedural error by applying an incorrect sentencing enhancement due to the loss amount being arbitrarily applied." (Id.) The Court construed that part of the motion as an attack on Movant's sentence under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 and directed the clerk to open the Motion as a new civil action Section 2255. (Cr-D.E. 134.) Thereafter, the clerk opened the instant case. (D.E. #1 .) On May 22, 2019, the Court dismissed that part of the motion as an unauthorized second or successive 2255 Motion. (D.E. #4 .) The Court found that Movant did not previously raise this issue in Sanchez-Badia I, and because Movant did not seek and receive authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive 2255 Motion, see 28 U.S.C. 2255(h), the Court was without jurisdiction to consider the Motion. (Order at 9 (citing Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that a Rule 60 motion "is to be treated as a successive habeas petition if it: (1) 'seeks to add a new ground of relief;' or (2) 'attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits.'")).) On June 14, 2019, Movant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, asserting that he did, in fact, raise this issue in Sanchez-Badia I. (D.E. 6 at 2.)The Court rejects Movant's argument. Movant's first 2255 Motion, as amended, asserted a single claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Sanchez-Badia I, D.E. 10.) Construed liberally, Movant's second or successive 2255 Motion asserts that the Court violated his constitutional right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment: "the Court committed a procedural error by applying an incorrect sentencing enhancement due to the loss amount being arbitrarily applied." (D.E. #1 at 6.) This issue was not raised in his First 2255 Motion. Therefore, the Court correctly determined that Movant's self-styled "Motion of Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to Rule 60(b)" constitutes an unauthorized second or successive 2255 Motion. Accordingly, Movant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This entry constitutes the PAPERLESS ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 7/10/2019. (gie)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Reconsideration re #4 Order, by Guillermo A. Sanchez-Badia. (ls) |
| Filing 5 PAPERLESS Case No Longer Referred to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid/Case Closed by the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid on 5/28/2019. (br) |
| Civil Case Terminated. Closing Case. (ls)(per DE #4) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND DISMISSING IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION #1 "Motion of Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to Rule 60(b)," DENYING Certificate of Appealability, and CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 5/22/2019. See attached document for full details. (gie)
|
| Filing 3 RESPONSE to #1 Motion (Complaint) to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) by United States of America. (wc) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Joan A. Lenard and Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2019-2, this matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (pes) |
| Filing 1 MOTION (Complaint) to Vacate Sentence (2255). NOTE: All further docketing is to be done in the civil case. (Criminal Case # 15-CR-20545), filed by Guillermo A. Sanchez-Badia.(pes) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Sanchez-Badia v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Guillermo A. Sanchez-Badia | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States of America | |
| Represented By: | Noticing 2255 US Attorney |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
