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.

United States v. Reves

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 15, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J. TYLER REVES, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LYNN G. BEDFORD, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted, San Francisco, California: November 20, 2014. [*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. Nos. 2:10-cv-01330-MCE-CMK, 2:02-cr-00468-MCE-CMK-3, D.C. Nos. 2:10-cv-01402-MCE-CMK, 2:02-cr-00468-MCE-CMK-2. Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding.

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, in a consolidated appeal arising from the district court's judgments denying as untimely J. Tyler Reves's and Lynn G. Bedford's motions to vacate their sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The panel held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Bedford's § 2255 motion because Bedford, whose sentence of probation expired the day before his motion was filed, was not " in custody" at the time he filed his motion, as required by § 2255(a). The panel held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not operate to extend Bedford's sentence, which ended on a Sunday, by one more day. The panel explained that the jurisdictional requirement that a § 2255 motion is only available to a prisoner in custody is a condition that either exists or does not exist, rather than a statute of limitations or other deadline for filing, as contemplated by the Federal Rules. The panel therefore reversed the district court's denial of Bedford's motion as untimely, and remanded with directions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

The panel held that the district court was correct that Reves's motion was untimely and that he does not qualify for the actual innocence or equitable tolling exceptions. The panel wrote that judicial opinions and exonerations of others do not affect the factual or legal basis for Reves's conviction pursuant to his plea agreement. The panel also found that Reves expressly waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence through a § 2255 motion in his plea agreement and during his change of plea colloquy; and concluded that the waiver is enforceable.

J. Tyler Reves, Defendant-Appellant, Pro se, Modesto, California.

Daniel Malakauskas, Stockton, California, for Defendant-Appellant Lynn G. Bedford.

Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney, Camil A. Skipper, Appellate Chief, and Sherry D. Haus, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and William H. Albritton III, Senior District Judge.[**] Opinion by Judge Albritton.

OPINION

Page 563

ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge:

This is a consolidated appeal in which Appellants J. Tyler Reves and Lynn G. Bedford appeal the District Court's denial of their motions to vacate their sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

On appeal as to Bedford, the Government argues, inter alia, that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Bedford's motion because it was filed the day after his sentence expired, meaning he was no longer " in custody" as is required to avail oneself of relief under ยง 2255. Bedford responds that because his sentence ended on a Sunday, he was still able to properly file his motion the following day, a Monday. The applicability of the Federal Rules' extension of ...


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.