Gonzalez v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02509
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, JR., § #78935-510, § Movant, § § CIVIL NO. 3:25-CV-2509-N v. § (CRIMINAL NO. 3:23-CR-422-N-3) § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”), received from Movant Guillermo Gonzalez, Jr. on September 16, 2025 (Dkt. No. 2). Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Motion is DISMISSED without prejudice as premature. I. BACKGROUND After being charged by complaint and in a multi-count indictment with several others, Gonzalez pled guilty under a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Crim. Dkt. Nos. 1, 50, 89, 116. By judgment entered March 14, 2025, the Court sentenced him to 262 months of imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release. See Crim. Dkt. No. 159. On March 18, 2025, Gonzalez filed two notices of appeal, one through appointed counsel and one pro se. See Crim. Dkt. Nos. 161, 163. His direct appeal is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 25-10437 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025). In the current Motion, Gonzalez seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. See Dkt. No. 2. II. SECTION 2255 “Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585,

589 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It has been repeatedly established that a “collateral challenge may not do service for an appeal.” United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 231 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982)). “It is a jurisdictional requirement of § 2255 that the conviction and sentence being challenged are final.” United States v. Clark, 816 F.3d 350, 362 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir. 1972)). A § 2255 motion therefore is “not entitled to consideration on the merits” when an appeal of the challenged conviction and sentence remains pending. Jones 453 F.2d at 352; see also United States v. Bernegger, 661 F.3d 232, 241 (5th Cir. 2011) (“A defendant cannot collaterally attack his conviction until it has been affirmed on direct

appeal.”). This is because “the disposition of the appeal may render the [§ 2255] motion moot.” United States v. Fantozzi, 90 F. App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Welsh v. United States, 404 F.2d 333, 333 (5th Cir. 1968), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Ortega, 859 F.2d 327, 334 (5th Cir. 1988)). Here, Gonzalez’s direct appeal of his conviction and sentence in the underlying criminal proceedings is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. As such, his conviction and sentence are not yet final for purposes of § 2255. See, e.g., United States v. Redd, 562 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that “‘[f]inality attaches when [the Supreme] Court affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires.’”). Because Gonzalez’s conviction and sentence are not yet final, his premature Motion is not ripe for consideration on the merits and is subject to dismissal without prejudice to his re-filing, if necessary, once his conviction and sentence become final. See United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 945 F.2d 1302, 1306 n.1 (Sth Cir. 1991). Il. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Motion without prejudice as premature. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 22"* day of September, 2025.

DAC UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUBGE