Caicedo v. United States of America DO NOT DOCKET IN 4:08-CV-3513. DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED IN 4:98-CR-135., No. 4:2008cv03513 - Document 4 (S.D. Tex. 2009)
Court Description: (COPY OF 32 IN CR H-98-135) OPINION & ORDER denying Motion to Vacate, Case terminated on August 6, 2009.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(htippen, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caicedo v. United States of America DO NOT DOCKET IN 4:08-CV-3513. DOC... BE FILED IN 4:98-CR-135. Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA } } } } } VS. EVER CACIEDO CRIMINAL ACTION NO. H-98-135 C.A. 4:08-cv-3513 OPINION & ORDER Pending before the Court are Defendant Ever Caciedo’s (“Caciedo”) Motion to Vacate under 28 USC § 2255 (Doc. 14) and the Government’s Motion to Deny Relief (Doc. 21). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stacy’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. 29), denying relief, and Caciedo’s Objections thereto (Doc. 31). Caciedo’s conviction became final on June 3, 1999. His § 2255 appeal was mailed on November 24, 2008. Under § 2255(f)(1), Caciedo had one year within which to bring his § 2255 motion. Usually the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of conviction. Caciedo argues that the statute of limitations period did not begin to run until August 12, 2008, the date when, as per § 2255(f)(4), he claims “facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” On that date Caciedo alleges he first received a copy of the Judgment and Order setting supervised release which this Court revoked. Caciedo, however, admits that he was apprised of the terms of the Judgment and Order setting supervised release. In fact, the argument on the merits he attempts to make is that he believed, that due to his return to the United States after his deportation at the behest of the Federal Bureau of Investigations to serve as a confidential informant, he was no longer under supervised release. Thus the Judgment and Order setting supervised release prior to these 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com circumstances is not a factual predicate to his claim on the merits and thus, is not a “fact supporting the claim” under § 2255(f)(4). Accordingly, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Stacy’s conclusion that the claim is time-barred to be correct, and adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Caciedo’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 14) is DENIED and the Government’s Motion to Deny Relief (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 6th day of August, 2009. ___________________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2
]]>
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.
