USA v. Villarreal et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:23-cv-146-KDB
5:18-cr-48-KDB-SCR-13
MARTIN VIDAL SANTILLAN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. 1].
I. BACKGROUND
The Petitioner was charged along with 15 co-defendants in a drug trafficking conspiracy.
The charges pertaining to Petitioner are: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute a detectable amount of methamphetamine (actual), methamphetamine, cocaine, and
marijuana (Count One); and attempt to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count
Seven). [5:18-cr-48 (“CR”) Doc. 3]. Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count One in exchange for the
Government’s dismissal of Count Seven. [CR Doc. 226]. Petitioner was sentenced to 156 months’
imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release in a Judgment entered on August 1,
2019. [CR Doc. 349]. He did not appeal.
Petitioner then filed several pro se Motions seeking compassionate release and sentence
reductions, all of which were unsuccessful. [See, e.g., CR Docs. 391, 392, 400, 404, 421, 426,
433].
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 447 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 5

2
On June 17, 2023,1 the Petitioner filed the instant “Motion for Leave to File a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255” in the criminal case. [Doc. 1]. On August 8, 2023, the
Court entered an Order informing Petitioner that it intended to recharacterize the “Motion for
Leave to File…” as a § 2255 Motion to Vacate and providing him warnings pursuant to United
States v. Castro, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). [Doc. 2]. The Court cautioned the Petitioner that the
“Motion for Leave to File…” does not substantially follow the required § 2255 form, is not
verified, and appears to be subject to dismissal with prejudice as time-barred. [Id. at 2-3]. The
Court granted Petitioner 30 days in which to: file a Notice withdrawing his Motion if he did not
wish for it to be recharacterized; or file a superseding Amended Motion to Vacate to correct the
deficiencies identified by the Court, demonstrate that it is not time-barred, and otherwise state a
claim for relief. He was informed that the failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order would
result in the Court recharacterizing the “Motion for Leave to File…” as a § 2255 Motion to Vacate,
and dismissing it without further notice. [Id. at 3-4].
II. SECTION 2255 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,
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
1 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule); Rule 3(d), 28 U.S.C.A. foll. §
2255 (addressing inmate filings).
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 447 Filed 09/18/23 Page 2 of 5

3
set forth therein. 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
A one-year period of limitations applies to § 2255 petitions, that runs from the latest of:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by
governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by
such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme
Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and
made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
An otherwise time-barred petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling in “those rare instances
where—due to circumstances external to the party’s own conduct—it would be unconscionable to
enforce the limitation against the party.” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 704 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing
Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000)); United States v. Prescott, 221 F.3d 686,
688 (4th Cir. 2000)(“§ 2255’s limitation period is subject to equitable modifications such as
tolling.”). Further, a credible showing of actual innocence may allow a prisoner to pursue his
constitutional claims on the merits notwithstanding the existence of a procedural bar to relief.
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 392 (2013).
Petitioner’s Judgment became final on August 15, 2019, when the 14-day period to file a
notice of appeal expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1), (b)(6); United States v. Osborne, 452 F.
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 447 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 5

4
App’x 294, 295-96 (4th Cir. 2011). Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 Motion to Vacate on June
17, 2023, nearly three years late. It is thus untimely pursuant to § 2255(f)(1). Petitioner was
cautioned that he must demonstrate why his Motion to Vacate was timely filed. [Doc. 2 at 2-4].
He has failed to do so and, accordingly, the Motion to Vacate is dismissed with prejudice as time-
barred.2
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the § 2255 Motion to Vacate is dismissed with prejudice as time-
barred.
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 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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
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).
3. The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
2 Petitioner’s “Motion for Leave to File…” is not signed under penalty of perjury and dismissal is also warranted on
that basis. See Rule 2(b)(5), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255; 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 447 Filed 09/18/23 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 18, 2023
2023
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 447 Filed 09/18/23 Page 5 of 5