Sanchez Vazquez v. United States
3:21-cv-02155
S.D. Cal.Jul 1, 2022Background
- In April 2019 the court sentenced Jesus Enrique Sanchez Vasquez to 71 months’ imprisonment and $100 in costs for felony importation of methamphetamine; no fine was imposed.
- In June 2019 Sanchez Vasquez filed a habeas petition asserting he had paid a substantial fine (greater than statutory maximum) which he claimed excused further custody.
- The court previously denied that petition, holding a defendant cannot nullify a court-imposed custodial sentence by paying a fine the court did not impose.
- On December 14, 2021 Sanchez Vasquez filed another §2255 petition; the district court could not discern the petition’s precise legal basis.
- The government and the court treated the 2021 filing as a second or successive §2255 petition; Sanchez Vasquez did not show he obtained Ninth Circuit authorization to file it.
- The court dismissed the 2021 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, noting a potential one-year §2255 statute of limitations issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear a second or successive §2255 absent appellate permission | Sanchez Vasquez filed a new §2255; asks court to consider his claims (basis unclear) | The prior petition was adjudicated on the merits; Ninth Circuit authorization is required and none was shown | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; petition is second/successive and dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether payment of a fine not imposed by the court can terminate custodial sentence | Sanchez Vasquez previously claimed paying a fine absolved remainder of his sentence | Court: a defendant cannot override the court’s statutory sentencing authority by paying an unauthorized fine | Court previously rejected this claim; it remains unavailable as a basis here and contributes to the successive-petition bar |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive §2255 petition unless petitioner first obtains authorization from the court of appeals)