USA V. JAMES COLASANTI, No. 17-35779 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-35779 D.C. Nos. 6:16-cv-01235-MC 6:96-cr-60132-MC-1 v. JAMES CHRIS COLASANTI, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner James Chris Colasanti appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Colasanti contends that the district court abused its discretion by considering the timeliness of his section 2255 motion. We conclude that the government did not deliberately waive a statute of limitations defense and the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the timeliness of the motion. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 202, 207-10 (2006) (district court may consider the timeliness of a habeas petition sua sponte if parties are given fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions). Colasanti next asserts that his section 2255 motion is timely because he filed it within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and the right recognized in Johnson applies to the mandatory career offender guideline under which he was sentenced. Colasanti’s reliance on Johnson is foreclosed because “Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.” United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2762 (2019). Contrary to Colasanti’s argument, our decision in Blackstone is not “clearly irreconcilable” with United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that section 2255(f)(3) does not apply and Colasanti’s motion is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining 2 17-35779 arguments. The government’s motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 3 17-35779
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.
