USA v. Gamboa et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Michael Gerald Gamboa, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Criminal No. 3:02-cr-47-01
vs. 	) 	Civil No. 3:07-cv-100
)
United States of America, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
Order Denying Motion to Amend
On December 12, 2008, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order denying the petitioner’s Motion to Vacate pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. #461). 	Before the Court now is a Motion
to Amend the Order (doc. #462). 	In his motion, Gamboa asserts
that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the
Court is required to state specifically its findings of fact and
conclusions of law on each of the over seventy legal grounds for
relief.
Assuming Rule 52(a) requires specially stated facts and
separate conclusions of law in this case, the Court’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order was nevertheless sufficient to satisfy the
requirements under the rule. 	The Court’s fifteen page order
detailed its basis in rejecting Gamboa’s forty-seven factual
grounds for relief. 	Collins v. Henderson, 180 F.3d 988, 990 (8th
Cir. 1999) (“It is well established that the trial court does not
need to make specific findings on all facts but only must
Case 3:02-cr-00047-PDW Document 463 Filed 01/21/09 Page 1 of 3

2
formulate findings on the ultimate facts necessary to reach a
decision. 	Findings are adequate if they afford a reviewing court
a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s
decision.”) (citing Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Small Business
Administration, 667 F.2d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 1982)). 	While the
analysis largely centered around the ineffective assistance of
counsel framework, the Court analyzed Gamboa’s grounds in
relation to this framework and stated its findings on the
ultimate facts necessary to reach its decision.
Moreover, despite Gamboa’s assertions that the Court did not
mention particular phrases or address specific evidence in its
order, “What Rule 52(a) does not require is a particularized
finding on each piece of evidence presented by the parties.”
White Industries, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 845 F.2d 1497,
1499 (8th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). 	See also Zack v. C.I.R.,
291 F.3d 407, 412 (6th Cir. 2002) (“When evaluating whether the
requirements of Rule 52(a) have been satisfied, we do not insist
that trial courts make factual findings directly addressing each
issue that a litigant raises.”). 	Surely, in a matter as
expansive and intricate as this case, the Court cannot be
expected to make a particularized finding on every single
complaint raised by Gamboa. 	Rather, the Court must “state its
decision so that the parties and reviewing court understand what
it has decided and why.” 	White Industries, 845 F.2d at 1499. 	In
Case 3:02-cr-00047-PDW Document 463 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 3

3
this case, the Court expressly walked through Gamboa’s various
grounds for relief and the applicable legal standards. 	The Court
reached its decision only after a thoughtful consideration of
each issue and the applicable law. 	Thus, the order is
sufficiently detailed to enable an understanding of the Court’s
reasoning. 	Accordingly, Gamboa’s Motion to Amend is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2009.
Case 3:02-cr-00047-PDW Document 463 Filed 01/21/09 Page 3 of 3