United States v. Pantoja
2:07-cr-01172
| C.D. Cal. | May 21, 2025Background
- Eduardo Hernandez was convicted in 2011 of RICO conspiracy and narcotics conspiracy as a mid-level gang leader involved in major drug distribution and other criminal activities in Los Angeles under the Mexican Mafia's direction.
- The jury convicted Hernandez on the RICO and drug charges but did not reach a verdict on a related VICAR murder charge, resulting in a mistrial on that count.
- At sentencing, the court attributed responsibility for over 25.2 kilograms of crack cocaine to Hernandez and applied a firearm enhancement, leading to a guideline sentence of life imprisonment.
- Hernandez's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on direct appeal.
- Hernandez, acting pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, raising claims similar to those previously rejected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug quantity calculation via multiplier method | The court wrongly applied the multiplier method | The method was correctly applied and affirmed on appeal | Properly utilized; not grounds for relief |
| Consideration of hung VICAR murder count at sentencing | The court wrongly considered the murder count post-mistrial | The court did not include it in offense levels, only as §3553(a) factor | Permissibly considered only as aggravating factor |
| Firearm enhancement | The 2-level firearm enhancement was erroneous | Even without enhancement, guidelines range was life | Harmless error; sentence unaffected |
| EQUAL Act inconsistency | Sentence inconsistent with proposed EQUAL Act | Act not enacted into law | No legal effect; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 962 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 2020) (upheld multiplier method, sentencing issues, and harmless error analysis for firearm enhancement)
- United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding § 2255 motions cannot be used for issues already decided on appeal)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (habeas review is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for appeal)
- United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1993) (procedural default for issues not raised on direct appeal)