Motion to set aside 289-month jail term on career offender dismissed

Manglona

The federal court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion to set aside a 289-month prison term imposed on John Gerald Castro Pangelinan, a career offender currently in federal prison for Hobbs Act robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, and escape.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona directed the clerk of court to transfer Pangelinan’s motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Manglona advised Pangelinan that he must still file a motion for leave to proceed in the Ninth Circuit and make the showing required by the statute.

Manglona construes Pangelinan’s motion as a successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence.

Pangelinan filed a motion requesting the court to appoint a counsel for him and grant him a resentencing hearing.

The defendant is currently incarcerated in federal prison in Kentucky after he was slapped with a 289-month prison term in 2005.

Pangelinan was sentenced as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

In his motion, Pangelinan asserts that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. U.S. case decided on June 26, 2015, his sentence is illegal.

In Johnson’s case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of an increased sentence on a person found to be a career criminal under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, violates due process.

In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that Pangelinan was a career offender because he had two prior felony convictions for burglary and one for attempted assault with a dangerous weapon.

Because of this statute the applicable sentencing range rose from 230-257 months to 262-327 months.

The court accepted the defendant’s change of plea on March 2, 2005. On June 3, 2005, the court sentenced him to 289 months.

Pangelinan did not directly appeal any aspect of his conviction or sentence.

Twice before in 2013 and 2015, Pangelinan appealed his sentence by filing motions to correct error and rehearing. Both times he was denied relief.

Manglona said a prisoner in custody serving sentence imposed by a federal court may move to have the sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected on grounds that it was imposed in violation of the U.S. laws or constitution.

Manglona said before a district court may accept a successive petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet the new-rule or actual-innocence provisions.

Manglona said without certification, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion.

Manglona said Pangelinan does not state under what statute, rule, or other authority he makes his latest motion.

Pangelinan asserts that a recent Supreme Court ruling calls into question whether his sentencing enhancement as a career offender was lawful.

Manglona said correcting sentences imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the U.S. is one of the express purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 2255.

Manglona said Pangelinan’s claim goes to the merits and does not allege a defect in the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Therefore, the judge said, the motion must be treated as a second or successive Section 2255 habeas motion.

As such, Manglona said, the court has no jurisdiction to consider it without certification from the Ninth Circuit.