Espinoza-Gonzalez v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:12-CR-217 JCM (GWF)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 JUDEL ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is petitioner Judel Espinoza-Gonzalez’s renewal of his motion 14 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 95) 15 This court denied petitioner’s initial motion under § 2255 on April 6, 2017. (ECF No. 90). 16 The Ninth Circuit affirmed that denial in a memorandum disposition and the order on mandate was 17 entered on May 25, 2022. (ECF Nos. 99; 102). During the pendency of that appeal, petitioner 18 filed the instant renewal of his motion “to preserve the filing date” of his original motion in light 19 of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019) and the Ninth 20 Circuit’s decision in United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018). 21 In affirming this court’s denial of the original motion, the Ninth Circuit held that “the 22 collateral attack waiver [in the plea agreement] forecloses § 2255 relief.” (ECF No. 99 at 2). 23 Therefore, petitioner’s renewed motion regarding timeliness is moot. 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s renewed 26 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (ECF No. 95) be, and 27 the same hereby is, DENIED. 28 1 The clerk is directed to enter separate civil judgment denying petitioner’s § 2255 motion 2| inthe matter of Espinoza-Gonzalez v. United States, case number 2:20-cv-01193-JCM, and close 3 | that case. 4 DATED February 22, 2023. 5 MBAtiws © Mala 6 UNITED\STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-