Marquez-Reyes v. USA, No. 3:2014cv01549 - Document 6 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) (Criminal Number 03-135) filed by Gilberto Marquez-Reyes. We also formally DENY Marquez-Reyes' Rule 60(a) motion (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 439). Pu rsuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, summary dismissal is in order because it plainly appears from the record that Petitioner is not entitled to § 2255 relief from this court. Judgment to enter accordingly. Petitioner may request a COA directly from the First Circuit, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 09/17/2014.(mrj)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 GILBERTO Mà RQUEZ-REYES, Plaintiff, Civil No. 14-1549 (JAF) v. (Crim. No. 03-135-3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 5 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 Petitioner Gilberto Márquez-Reyes ( Márquez-Reyes ) comes before the court 8 with a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence we 9 imposed in Criminal No. 03-135-3. (Docket No. 1.) For the following reasons, we deny 10 his petition. 11 It has become common practice to collaterally challenge federal convictions in 12 federal court by raising arguments of dubious merit. This practice is overburdening 13 federal district courts to the point of having some of these criminal cases re-litigated on 14 § 2255 grounds. We look at this matter with respect to the rights of litigants, but also 15 must protect the integrity of the system against meritless allegations. See Davis v. U.S., 16 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974) (in a motion to vacate judgment under § 2255, the claimed 17 error of law must be a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete 18 miscarriage of justice); see also Dirring v. U.S., 370 F.2d 862 (1st Cir. 1967) (§ 2255 is a 19 remedy available when some basic fundamental right is denied not as vehicle for 20 routine review for defendant who is dissatisfied with his sentence). Márquez-Reyes 21 continues to raise the same claim time and again hoping for a different result. 1 I. 2 Background 3 Márquez-Reyes was indicted on May 8, 2003, and his guilty plea was accepted on 4 September 30, 2004. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket Nos. 2, 137, 138, 142.) Márquez- 5 Reyes pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 6 and 846, and was sentenced to one hundred and thirty (130) months imprisonment. 7 (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 215). The judgment, contained a provision purporting to require that his sentence be served first, and that he then be returned to the Puerto Rico prison system to serve the balance of his earlier Puerto Rico sentence for second-degree murder and weapons violations. Later, an administrative official discovered that, in order for [Márquez-Reyes] to serve his federal sentence first, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would have to relinquish jurisdiction specifically, which it declined to do. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (Appeal No. 08-2032; Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 402). Therefore, judgment was 18 amended revising the sequencing statement to a recommendation rather than a 19 directive. Id. 20 Márquez-Reyes appealed the amended judgment. On December 29, 2009, the 21 First Circuit dismissed Márquez-Reyes appeal, writing that the defendant s appeal is 22 untimely and he has not articulated any credible reason for its untimeliness or why he 23 should be relieved of the bar created by Rule 4(b). Id. Márquez-Reyes wrote a petition 24 for certiorari. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court denied his petition. Marquez-Reyes 25 v. U.S., 130 S. Ct. 3525 (2010). 26 On August 23, 2010, Márquez-Reyes filed a motion to compel specific 27 performance of the plea agreement, asking that we order that Marquez s sentence be 28 effectively concurrent with the state sentence which already has been served, execution 1 of the sentence be considered served, and he be immediately placed on supervised release 2 for a period of two years. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 404.) We denied this 3 motion on October 19, 2010, stating that Judge Laffitte and the Government lived to 4 Defendant s expectations in the Plea Agreement. 5 conformity thereof. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 407.) Márquez-Reyes appealed 6 our order. On October 25, 2011, the First Circuit affirmed. (Appeal No. 10-2452; Crim. 7 No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 407.) The sentences imposed were in 8 On February 11, 2013, Márquez-Reyes filed a motion to amend or correct the 9 amended judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(a). (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 439.) We 10 ordered the Bureau of Prisons to review the time calculations and to inform the court 11 what time has been credited, what time has not been credited, and the reasons for these 12 actions. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 439.) On April 2, 2013, we filed the Bureau 13 of Prisons response and the declaration of an analyst, with all copies notified to 14 Márquez-Reyes. 15 Márquez-Reyes filed a motion requesting the status of the case, in response to which we 16 sent him all the previous documents. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket Nos. 447, 448.) 17 18 (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 443.) On January 21, 2014, On July 10, 2014, Márquez-Reyes filed the instant motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 1.) 19 II. 20 Jurisdiction 21 Márquez-Reyes is currently in federal custody, having been sentenced by this 22 district court. To file a timely motion, Márquez-Reyes had one year from the date his 23 judgment became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The Supreme Court denied his petition for 24 a writ of certiorari on June 28, 2010, and a petition for rehearing needed to be filed within 1 twenty-five days after the order of denial. SUP. CT. R. 44; Marquez-Reyes v. U.S., 130 S. 2 Ct. 3525 (2010). Therefore Márquez-Reyes judgment became final on June 23, 2010, 3 and he had until July 23, 2011, to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because 4 Márquez-Reyes did not file until July 10, 2014 nearly three years past the deadline we 5 lack jurisdiction and must deny his petition. 6 III. 7 Analysis 8 Even if Márquez-Reyes petition were not time-barred, we would still need to 9 deny his petition because his claims have already been adjudicated by the First Circuit The First Circuit affirmed the District Court s revision of the 10 Court of Appeals. 11 sentencing statement. (Appeal No. 08-2032; Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 402.) 12 Márquez-Reyes petitioned for certiorari, but the Supreme Court denied his petition. 13 Marquez-Reyes v. U.S., 130 S. Ct. 3525 (2010). Márquez-Reyes then moved to compel 14 specific performance, effectively demanding the non-revised sentence. He appealed our 15 denial of this motion, and the First Circuit again affirmed our order. (Appeal No. 10- 16 2452; Crim. No. 03-135-3.) The First Circuit has held that when an issue has been 17 disposed of on direct appeal, it will not be reviewed again through a § 2255 motion. 18 Singleton v. United States, 26 F.3d 233, 240 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing Dirring v. United 19 States, 370 F.2d 862, 863 (1st Cir. 1967)). The Supreme Court has also held that if a 20 claim was raised and rejected on direct review, the habeas court will not readjudicate it 21 absent countervailing equitable considerations. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 721 22 (1993). 1 IV. 2 Rule 60(a) Motion 3 On February 11, 2013, Márquez-Reyes filed a motion to amend or correct the He asked this court to re-issue its 4 amended judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(a). 5 September, 30, 2004 judgment with a clarification/correction of the actual sentence 6 imposed by this Court. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 439.) We ordered the Bureau 7 of Prisons to review the time calculations and inform the court what time has been 8 credited, what time has not been credited, and the reasons for these actions. (Crim. 9 No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 439.) On April 2, 2013, we filed the Bureau of Prisons 10 response and the declaration of an analyst, with all copies notified to Márquez-Reyes. 11 (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 443.) On January 21, 2014, Márquez-Reyes filed a 12 motion requesting the status of the case, in response to which we sent him all the 13 previous documents. (Crim. No. 03-135-3, Docket Nos. 447, 448.) 14 We believe that our prior response was incomplete. We now formally deny 15 Márquez-Reyes motion based both upon the information filed by the Bureau of Prisons 16 and the reasoning already set forth in this opinion. 17 V. 18 19 20 Certificate of Appealability In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, whenever 21 issuing a denial of § 2255 relief we must concurrently determine whether to issue a 22 certificate of appealability ( COA ). 23 We grant a COA only upon a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 24 right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, [t]he petitioner must demonstrate 25 that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional 1 claims debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quoting 2 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 3 requested a COA, we see no way in which a reasonable jurist could find our assessment 4 of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Márquez-Reyes may request a COA 5 directly from the First Circuit, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. 6 V. 7 While Márquez-Reyes has not yet Conclusion 8 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Márquez-Reyes § 2255 motion 9 (Docket No. 1). We also formally DENY Márquez-Reyes Rule 60(a) motion (Crim. 10 No. 03-135-3, Docket No. 439). Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 11 Proceedings, summary dismissal is in order because it plainly appears from the record 12 that Márquez-Reyes is not entitled to § 2255 relief from this court. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 17th day of September, 2014. 15 16 17 S/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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.