United States v. Valerie Jo Schwartz

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 12961·274 F.3d 1220·2001 WL 1590185·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10392·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26568
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 14, 200100-35719California1,720 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

Valerie Jo Schwartz appeals the district court’s denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. We hold that Schwartz’s § 2255 motion is barred by the statute of limitations, notwithstanding: (1) the possibility of a sentence reduction under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Crimi nal Procedure; and (2) her continuing obligation under a plea agreement to provide testimony against her co-defendants. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the motion.

I

Schwartz and five co-defendants were charged with conspiring to manufacture, and possessing with the intent to distribute, methamphetamine. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Schwartz pled guilty on January 31, 1994. The plea agreement required Schwartz to “cooperate fully and completely with the government including a complete debriefing, testimony at grand jury and at trial or trials as the government deems necessary.” The government could declare the plea agreement null and void if, at any time, it made “a good faith determination that Ms. Schwartz is not being completely truthful and cooperative.” As required by the plea agreement, Schwartz testified against her five…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.