Sanchez-Espinoza v. United States of America, No. 4:2016cv01461 - Document 4 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 4:13cr462 (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

Download PDF
Sanchez-Espinoza v. United States of America Doc. 4 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED May 26, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CARMEN SANCHEZ-ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-1461 (Criminal No. H-13-462-01) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, Carmen Sanchez-Espinosa, has filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody ("§ 2255 Motion") (Docket Entry No. 37) . 1 On September 13, 2013, petitioner pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. (b) ( 1); and on November 22, 2013, petitioner was § 1326(a) and sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison and three years of supervised release (Judgment in a Criminal Case, Docket Entry No. 24). After petitioner sentence, completed the custodial portion of her the government moved to revoke her supervised release because she had been convicted of theft in state court and had again illegally reentered the United States (Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision, Docket Entry No. 26). 1 All docket entry references are to Criminal No. H-13-462. Dockets.Justia.com On March 4, 2016, petitioner admitted both violations, and the court revoked her supervised release and sentenced her to eighteen months in prison (Judgment in a Criminal Case, Docket Entry No. 36) As the sole ground for relief in her § 2255 Motion, Sanchez- Espinosa alleges: A. Violation of constitutional right Ground One: Amendment V- Due Process. Supporting FACTS (state briefly without citing cases or law) The U.S. Supreme Court has deemed the residual clause vague and unconstitutional for crimes of violence. Although Sanchez-Espinosa's § November since 2013 conviction, 2255 Motion only complains of her she has already served that sentence and is now in custody for a supervised release violation, the court will also consider her claim as a challenge to her revocation sentence. The Court has carefully reviewed Sanchez-Espinosa' s motion as required by Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts and concludes that a response to her motion is not required. In Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. enhancement for a § 924(e) (2) (B) (ii), for purposes of sentence felon's unconstitutionally vague. possession of a firearm was In Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. -2- 1257 (2016), the Court held that its decision in Johnson announced a substantive rule that applied retroactively on collateral review. Neither Sanchez-Espinosa' s original sentence nor her sentence on revocation was based on the ACCA, and the ACCA did not affect her advisory sentencing guideline concludes that § 2255, range. The court therefore Sanchez-Espinosa is not entitled to relief under either as to her original sentence or her sentence on revocation. Accordingly, Sanchez-Espinosa's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody (Docket Entry No. 37) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Carmen Sanchez-Espinosa and to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, and to file a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in the corresponding civil action. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 26th day of May, 2016. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.