USA v. Addison et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:22-cv-00077-FDW
(3:17-cr-00134-FDW-DSC-21)
PEDRO GUTIERREZ, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Pro Se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside
or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [CV Doc. 1].1
I. BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Petitioner and over 80 other members of
the United Blood Nation (“UBN”) gang on various charges, including conspiracy to engage in a
pattern of racketeering activities, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). [CR Doc. 1241]. The racketeering activities
included multiple acts involving murder and robbery, use or carry of a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, assault with a dangerous weapon, possession with the intent to
distribute illegal narcotics, possession of a firearm by convicted felons, wire fraud, identity theft,
and bank fraud. United States v. Gutierrez, 963 F.3d 320, 328 (2020). Petitioner was the leader,
1 Citations to the record herein contain the relevant document number referenced preceded by either the
letters “CV,” denoting that the document is listed on the docket in the civil case file number 3:22-cv-00077-
FDW, or the letters “CR,” denoting that the document is listed on the docket in the criminal case file number
3:17-cr-00134-FDW-DSC-21.
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3328 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 5

2
or “godfather,” of the Nine Trey Gangsters, one of nine tightly controlled sets of the UBN. Id. at
327.
Petitioner proceeded to trial and was found guilty by a jury of RICO conspiracy in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1963(a). [CR Doc. 1568: Jury Verdict]. Petitioner was sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of 240 months. [CR Doc. 2035: Judgment]. Judgment on Petitioner’s
conviction was entered on September 6, 2018. [Id.]. Petitioner appealed his conviction and
sentence. [CR Doc. 2050: Notice of Appeal]. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Gutierrez, 963 F.3d
at 344.
On January 3, 2022, Petitioner timely filed the instant motion to vacate.2 [CV Doc. 1].
Petitioner claims that his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated because the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. [Id. at 4]. In support of
this claim, Petitioner asserts that, “[t]he Government has failed to submit into the record evidence:
(1) any documentation showing ownership by the United States (Federal Government) over the
place where the criminal activity is alleged in the Complaint/Indictment to have occurred, and (2)
any cessions and acceptance of jurisdiction.” [Id.]. He also contends that, “the criminal statute
exceeds the power of congress as applied to Petitioner’s alleged conduct.” [Id.].
For relief, Petitioner wants to “be discharged from his unconstitutional confinement and
restraint.” [Id. at 12].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal prisoner claiming that his “sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or the laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence,
2 Because Petitioner’s motion was not received by this Court until February 23, 2022, the Court ordered the
parties to provide evidence demonstrating when Petitioner placed his motion to vacate in the prison mailing
system. [CV Doc. 3]. The parties responded [CV Docs. 4-6] and the Court is satisfied that Petitioner’s
motion is timely.
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3328 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 5

3
or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to
collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct
the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that courts are to
promptly examine motions to vacate, along with “any attached exhibits and the record of prior
proceedings . . .” in order to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims
set forth therein. In many cases, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether or not
counsel was ineffective for misadvising a petitioner about a plea offer. See generally United States
v. Witherspoon, 231 F.3d 923, 926–27 (4th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(b). After examining
the record in this matter, the Court finds that the arguments presented by Petitioner can be resolved
without an evidentiary hearing based on the record and governing case law. See Raines v. United
States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).
III. DISCUSSION
Petitioner has failed to present a colorable claim under Section 2255. Citing 18 U.S.C. §
3231, Petitioner claims that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case. Petitioner
also offers the unelaborated contention that “the criminal statute exceeds the power of Congress,”
which is vague and conclusory and subject to dismissal on this ground alone. See United States
v. Dyess, 730 F.3d 354, 359-60 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding it was proper to dismiss § 2255 claims
based on vague and conclusory allegations).
“Subject-matter jurisdiction (in the sense of judicial power) over federal criminal
prosecutions is conferred on district courts by 18 U.S.C. § 3231.” United States v. Hartwell, 448
F.3d 707, 716 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 938, 127 S.Ct. 328 (2006). As such, a federal
district court has jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” See 18
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3328 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 5

4
U.S.C. § 3231. “Moreover, there can be no doubt that Article III permits Congress to assign federal
criminal prosecutions to federal courts. That’s the beginning and the end of the jurisdictional
inquiry.” United States v. Kilgore, 2007 WL 4022840, at *1 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished decision)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Petitioner does not dispute that his criminal prosecution involved the laws of the United
States. Rather, he seems to argue that the Government was obligated to show that it owned the
land on which Petitioner’s criminal activity occurred or that he acquiesced in the Court’s
jurisdiction. This is plainly not the law and directly undermined by the very statute Petitioner
cites. Moreover, Congress is and was undoubtedly authorized to criminalize Petitioner’s criminal
conduct and to assign the prosecution therefore to federal courts. The Court will, therefore, dismiss
Petitioner’s motion to vacate.
In sum, Petitioner has presented no grounds supporting relief under Section 2255. The
Court, therefore, denies and dismisses Petitioner’s motion to vacate.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies and dismisses Petitioner’s Section 2255
petition.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 [Doc.1] is DENIED and DISMISSED.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338
(2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3328 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 5

5
debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (when relief is
denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right).
Signed: March 29, 2022
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3328 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 5