Valdez v. United States

W.D. Louisiana

Valdez v. United States

DecidedJune 15, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-00725

StatusUnknown

This text of Valdez v. United States (Valdez v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valdez v. United States, (W.D. La. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

ANTONIO VALDEZ #98735-079 CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00725 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE DRELL USA MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

ORDER Before the court is a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 1) filed by petitioner Antonio Valdez (“Valdez” or “Petitioner”). Valdez’ motion seeks two forms of relief therein: (1) recalculation of his sentence to remove the enhancement applied by virtue of Valdez’ “career offender” status, and (2) to have his sentence of imprisonment converted to a period of home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act (Pub. L. 116-136). Insofar as Valdez’s motion seeks reconsideration of his sentence, this court is not the proper venue for the filing of such motion. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; U.S. v. Harper, 460 F.2d 1024 (5 Cir.

1972). After review of Valdez’s underlying criminal case in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division (Crim. Act. No. 02-CR-00059), we deem transfer of this motion to be futile. The record shows that this identical motion was already filed in that court and duly considered by U.S. District Judge Janice Graham Jack, the sentencing judge. (Doc. 114). Moreover, Judge Jack issued her ruling in this motion on May 28, 2020, denying Valdez’ requested relief. (Doc. 115). Although we are without jurisdiction to consider Valdez’ motion, we note that this court would similarly lack jurisdiction over Valdez’s CARES Act claim. United States v. Korieocha, 2020 WL 2331679 (E.D. La. 2020); United States v. Gentry, 2020 WL 2131001 (W.D. La. 2020); United States v. Figueroa Maldonado, 2020 WL 2225182 (S.D. Tex. 2020); United States v.

Echols, 2020 WL 2309255 (N.D. Miss. 2020). Thus, dismissal of Valdez’s CARES Act claim would necessarily follow, were this motion properly before this court for disposition. Considering the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Valdez’ motion is DENIED as MOOT. —t. THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Alexandria, Louisiana this J2 day of June, 2020

DEE D. DRELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

ANTONIO VALDEZ #98735-079 CASE NO. 1:20-CV-00725 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE DRELL USA MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

ORDER Before the court is a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 1) filed by petitioner Antonio Valdez (“Valdez” or “Petitioner”). Valdez’ motion seeks two forms of relief therein: (1) recalculation of his sentence to remove the enhancement applied by virtue of Valdez’ “career offender” status, and (2) to have his sentence of imprisonment converted to a period of home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act (Pub. L. 116-136). Insofar as Valdez’s motion seeks reconsideration of his sentence, this court is not the proper venue for the filing of such motion. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; U.S. v. Harper, 460 F.2d 1024 (5 Cir.

1972). After review of Valdez’s underlying criminal case in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division (Crim. Act. No. 02-CR-00059), we deem transfer of this motion to be futile. The record shows that this identical motion was already filed in that court and duly considered by U.S. District Judge Janice Graham Jack, the sentencing judge. (Doc. 114). Moreover, Judge Jack issued her ruling in this motion on May 28, 2020, denying Valdez’ requested relief. (Doc. 115). Although we are without jurisdiction to consider Valdez’ motion, we note that this court would similarly lack jurisdiction over Valdez’s CARES Act claim. United States v. Korieocha, 2020 WL 2331679 (E.D. La. 2020); United States v. Gentry, 2020 WL 2131001 (W.D. La. 2020); United States v. Figueroa Maldonado, 2020 WL 2225182 (S.D. Tex. 2020); United States v.

Echols, 2020 WL 2309255 (N.D. Miss. 2020). Thus, dismissal of Valdez’s CARES Act claim would necessarily follow, were this motion properly before this court for disposition. Considering the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Valdez’ motion is DENIED as MOOT. —t. THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Alexandria, Louisiana this J2 day of June, 2020

DEE D. DRELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Valdez v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdez-v-united-states-lawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack