Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanchez v. United States

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

June 19, 2019

SAMUEL SANCHEZ, Movant-Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          William E. Smith, Chief Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on a Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) Extraordinary Circumstances (“Rule 60(b) Motion, ” ECF No. 352) filed by Petitioner Samuel Sanchez.[1] The Government has filed a response requesting summary dismissal of the Rule 60(b) Motion or, alternatively, an extension of time to file its response (“Response and Request, ” ECF No. 355). For the following reasons, the Rule 60(b) Motion is DENIED.[2]

         I. Background and Procedural History[3]

         On December 18, 2000, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Rhode Island indicted Sanchez, among others, for conspiracy to commit carjacking and carjacking with death resulting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2119(3). Sanchez pled guilty to both counts pursuant to a written plea agreement (ECF No. 117) in which the Government promised not to seek the death penalty. The Court sentenced Sanchez on November 7, 2002, to life imprisonment. Judgment (ECF No. 247) entered on November14, 2002.[4]

         Sanchez filed a timely Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 250), and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the Judgment on January 7, 2004. United States v. Sanchez, 354 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2004). The appellate court's Mandate (ECF No. 298) issued on January 29, 2004. The Supreme Court subsequently denied Sanchez's petition for writ of certiorari. Sanchez v. United States, 541 U.S. 1054 (2004).

         On May 31, 2005, Sanchez filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1 in C.A. No. 05-240 RRL). The Court found the motion totally devoid of merit and denied it in a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 10 in C.A. No. 05-240 RRL) dated September 28, 2005. The Court also denied a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) (ECF No. 15 in C.A. No. 05-240 RRL). Sanchez filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 13 in C.A. No. 05-240 RRL), which the First Circuit treated as a request for a COA and denied in a Judgment (ECF No. 21 in C.A. No. 05-240 RRL) entered on February 22, 2007. The court's Mandate (ECF No. 22 in C.A. No. 05-240 RRL) issued on April 11, 2007.

         Sanchez subsequently sought certification from the First Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 petition in this Court, which the Circuit Court denied on September 20, 2010 (ECF No. 307), because Sanchez had failed to make the required showing.

         Sanchez filed a previous motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 to reopen the 2005 § 2255 proceedings (ECF No. 334) on March 11, 2015, seeking resentencing to a lower term of imprisonment. The Court treated the motion as a second or successive motion to vacate under § 2255 and denied it in a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 339) dated October 21, 2015, because Sanchez had neither sought nor received permission from the First Circuit to file it in this Court.

         It appears that Sanchez again sought leave to file a second or successive petition, which the First Circuit denied in a Judgment (ECF No. 26 in C.A. No. 05-240-RRL) entered on April 15, 2016.

         Sanchez has now filed a second Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF No. 352), again asking to reopen the 2005 proceedings and be given the opportunity to be granted a COA. The Government filed a Response and Request (ECF No. 355), seeking summary dismissal of the Rule 60(b) Motion or, in the alternative, an extension of time in which to file its response. Prior to the Court's receipt of the Government's Response and Request, Sanchez filed Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(d) (“Motion for Default Judgment, ” ECF No. 354), based on the Government's failure to file a response to the Rule 60(b) Motion. In a July 31, 2018, text order, the Court denied the Motion for Default Judgment and granted the Government's request for an extension of time.

         II. Discussion

         Rule 60(b) provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.