Ledezma-Rodriguez v. Brecken, No. 7:2018cv00268 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/24/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
' okëalt': o:plcsïu a ilellim tlr ATPANVIZLi,VA Fll-iq r' IN TH E U NITED STA TES DISTRIC T C O UR T FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTRIC T O F V IR G IN IA R O AN O K E DIV ISIO N SEP2312212 '1. JUL BY; D EM rJpjkx D JUAN LEDEZM A -R O D RIG UEZ , Petitioner, CivilA ction N o.7:18cv00268 V. M EM O R AN D U M O PIN IO N M .BR ECK EN , By: H on.Jacltson L.K iser Senior United States D istrictJudge R espondent. Juan Ledezm a-Rodriguez,a federalinmateproceeding pro yç,tiled a petition forawritof .. habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.j2241.Relying on 28 U.S.C. j2255($,United States v. W heeler,886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.2018),andUnited Statesv.Simmons,649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011),1Ledezma-Rodriguez seeks to invalidate the sentence imposed on him by the United States DistrictCourtfor the Southern DistrictofIowa in 2002,Case N o.3:00cr00071.Upon review ofthe record,Iconcludethattherespondent'sm otion to dismissmustbe granted because llackjurisdictiontoconsiderLedezma-Rodriguez'sj2241petition. 1. In2002,afterajlzrytrialintheSouthern DistrictofIowa,thecourtconvicted LedezmaRodriguez ofpossession with intent to distribute m ore than 500 grams of mixture containing m ethnmphetamine and nm phetnmine purporting to be m ethnmphetam ine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.jj841(a)(1)mld (b)(1)(A);possessionofcocainewith intenttodistribute,in violationof Ledezma-Rodriguez v. Brecken Doc. 17 21U.S.C.jj841(a)(1)and (b)(1)(B);conspiracytodistributecocaineand morethan500 grams of m ixture containing m etham phetam ine and am phetam ine pup orting to be m etham phetam ine, 1ln reviewing apriorconviction underN ol' th Carolina law,Simm onsheld thata priorconviction could notenhance a sentence ifthe defendant'scriminalhistory wasnotsufficientto garnermore than a yearofimprisonment. Dockets.Justia.com in violation of21U.S.C.jj 846 and 841(b)(1)(B);and carrying aErearm in relation to adrug traffckingcrime,in violation of18U.S.C.j924(c).Priortotrial,theUnitedStatestiledanotice ofpriorconvictionspursuantto 21U.S.C.j 851,setting forth Ledezma-Rodriguez'stwo prior Oregon felony drug convictions, w hich increased the m andatory m inim um sentence to life imprisonm enton two ofthe federaldrug counts.The courtsentenced Ledezma-Rodriguez to life imprisonm ent on the conspiracy and methamphetnm ine distribution convictions,a concurrent thirtp yearsentence on the cocaine distribution conviction,and a consecutive five-yearsentence on the j 924/) conviction.Ledezma-Rodriguez appealed and the CourtofAppeals for the Eighth Circuitdenied the appeal. In Septem ber2003,Ledezm a-llodriguez filed a motion to vacate,setaside,orcorrecthis sentencepursuantto j2255,whichtheSouthern Districtoflowadenied and theEighth Circuit affirmed.In 2006,Ledezm a-Rodriguez filed a petition for a successive habeas corpus m otion tmder28U.S.C.j2244,andtheEighth Circuitdeniedhismotion.ln 2013,Ledezma-Rodriguez filedasecond j2255motioninthedistrictcourtandthecourtdismisseditwithoutprejudiceas successive.In 2014,Ledezma-Rodriguez filed anotherpetition fora successive habeas corpus motion underj 2244,which the courtagain denied.In 2016,Ledezma-Rodriguezfiled athird petition for a successive habeascorpus motion underj 2244,and the courtagain denied his petition. ln hisinstantj2241petition,Ledezma-Rodriguez arguesthathissentence isunlawf'ul because his prior Oregon drug convictions are not qualifying offenses for the sentencing enhancementof21U.S.C.j841(b)(1)(A),in lightofSimmons,649F.3d237.2Respondenttiled a motion to dism iss and Ledezm a-Rodriguez has responded, m aking the m atter ripe for 2Respondentcontendsthatthe Oregon convictionsremain proper predicate offenses.1need not makethatdeterminationbecauseIlackjurisdictionoverthepetition. disposition. II. A prisonergenerally mustfileamotion underj2255tocollaterallyattackthelegality of hisdetentionunderafederalconvictionorsentence.28U.S.C.j2255($, .Davisv.United States, 417U.S.333,343 (1974).A districtcourtcannotentertain apetition forawritofhabeascorpus under j2241 challenging a federal courtjudgment unless a motion pursuant to j2255 is ttinadequateorineffectiveto testthelegality of(thatinmate'sqdetention.''28U.S.C.j2255/) (idthe savings clause''l;United Statesv.M?heeler,886 F.3d 415,423 (4th Cir.2018).çsgflhe remedy afforded by j 2255 is notrendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individualhas been unable to obtain relief under that provision,or because an individualis procedlzrally barred from filing a j2255motion.''In reVial,115F.3d 1192,1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997).3 TheUnited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuithasconcluded thatj2255is inadequate and ineffectivetotestthelegality ofasentencewhen: (1)atthetime ofsentencing,settled 1aw ofthis circuitorthe Supreme Court established the legality ofthe sentence;(2) subsequentto the prisoner'sdirect appeal and first j 2255 motion,the aforementioned settled substantive 1aw changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateralreview;(3)the prisonerisunableto meetthe gatekeeping provisionsofj 2255(19(2)forsecond orsuccessivemotions;and (4)dueto thisretroactive change,thé sentence now presentsan errorsufficiently graveto be deem ed afundnm entaldefect. W heeler,886 F.3d at429.4 If any one ofthe requirem ents isnotm et, the courtis deprived of 3I have om itted internalquotation marks,alterations,ancl/orcitations here and throughoutthis mem orandum opinion,unlessothem ise noted. 4Although recognizing theirstatus asbinding precedenton thiscoul' t,respondentalso argues in his motion to dismiss thatW heeler and ln re Jones,226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir.2000),were incorrectly decided by the Fourth Circuit.1 decline to overrule the Fourth Circuit's decisions in these cases.See Condonv.Halev,21F.Supp.3d572,583 (D.S.C.2014)(1tgAjdecision ofa circuitcoult notoverruled bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,iscontrollingprecedentforthedistrictcourtswithinthecircuit.''). jtlrisdiction andmay not'sentertain (thepetitionjtobeginwith.''Id.at425.Ledezma-Rodriguez bearsthebtlrdenofprovingsubjectmatterjlzrisdiction.Adamsv.Bain,697F.2d 1213,1219(4th Cir.1982). In evaluating the substantive1aw in a j2255($ savingsclause analysis,thecourtmust Ellook to the substantive 1aw ofthecircuitwhere a defendantwasconvicteda''Halm v.M oselev, 931F.3d 295,300-01 (4th Cir.2019).The Iowa districtcourtwhere Ledezma-Rodriguez was convictediswithin theEighth Circuit.28U.S.C.j41.Accordingly,whilethecourtmustapply theproceduralstandard in W heeler,itm ustdo so using Eighth Circuitsubstantivelaw.Id. Ledezm a-Rodriguez relies exclusively on Simm ons as substantive 1aw to supporthis argtlm ent.However,Simm onsis aFourth Circuitdecision thatisnotbinding upon coul'tswithin othercircuits.ssee W illinmsv.Ziecler,No. 5:12-0398,2013 U .S.D ist.LEX IS 183854,at *14, 2014 W L 201713,at*4 (S.D.W .Va.Dec.30,2013)(citing Goodwin v.United States,No. 1:12cv430;1:08cr104,2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 80093,at*9,2013 W L 2468365,at* 3 (E.D. Tenn.June 7,2013)).Ledezma-Rodriguez hasfailed to identify any retroactiveEighth Circuit casethatwould substantively change the1aw applicableto hisconviction.Therefore,1conclude that Ledezma-Rodziguez is unable to satisfy the second prong of W heeler and,thus, I lack 5Inote thatin reaching its decision in Sim mons,the Fourth Circuitrelied on Carachuri-lkosendo v.Holder,560 U.S.563 (2010).The United States Supreme Court,however,did notmake CarachuriRosendo retroactive to cases on collateral review . Thus, Carachuri-Rosendo does not establish a substantive change in the law forpurposes ofthe savings clause.On August21,2013,the Fourth Circuit held thatSim mons is retroactive to caseson collateralreview that involve claims of actualinnocence of anunderlyingSection 922(g)conviction.M illerv.United States,735F.3d 141(4th Cir.2013).lnM iller, the Fourth Circuitnoted thatKûgtjhe factthatthisCoul'trelied on Carachuriin reaching itsdecision in Sim monsdoesnotmean thatCarachuriitselfannounced a new ruleofsubstantive crim inallaw,only that thisCoul'tapplied Carachuriin such a way asto announce such a gnew substantive rule.j''M iller,735 F.3d at 146.The Fourth Circuit explained that even though t'Carachuriis a proceduralrule that is not retroactive,thisdoesnotmean thatSimm ons,in applying Carachuri,did notannounce a substantive rule that isretroactive.''ld.at 147.Although M illerand Simm ons may resultin a substantive change in the law forindividuals convicted in the Foul'th Circuit,Ledezm a-Rodriguez wasconvicted in Eighth Circuit and cannotsustain hisburden ofshowing asubstantive change in the 1aw based upon Simm ons,V iller,or Carachuri-Rosendo. 4 jurisdictiontoconsiderhisj2241petition. 111. For the reasons stated, will grant respondent's m otion and dismiss Ledezm a- Rodriguez'sj2241petitionwithoutprejudiceforlackofjurisdiction.W heeler,886F.3dat42425(holdingthatj2255(e)isjurisdictional). à ENTEREDthisR QayofSeptember,2019. N I R UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT JUD G E
]]>
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.
