1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 JESUS ENRIQUE SANCHEZ Case Nos. 3:21-cv-2155-LAB 11 VASQUEZ, 3:18-cr-03560-LAB-1 12 Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

13 vs. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 [Dkt. 1]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Respondent. 16 17 In April 2019, this Court sentenced Petitioner Jesus Enrique Sanchez 18 Vasquez (“Petitioner”) to 71 months’ imprisonment and assessed costs of 19 $100, but no fine, for felony importation of methamphetamine pursuant to 21 20 U.S.C. § 960(b). In June 2019, in a related case filed before the Court, 21 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that although his 22 sentence didn’t include a fine, he nevertheless paid a considerable fine (more 23 than the maximum allowed by statute), which absolved him from serving the 24 remainder of his custodial sentence. Sanchez Vasquez v. United States of 25 America, Case No. 19-cv1154-LAB-JLB, Dkt. 1 at 1, 7–8. But the Court denied 26 his petition, finding that “Petitioner can’t override the Court’s statutory authority 27 to impose a custodial sentence by paying a fine the Court didn’t impose.” Id., 1 Now before the Court is another petition for writ of habeas corpus under 2 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed on December 14, 2021. (Dkt. 1). Because Petitioner’s 3 prior petition was adjudicated on the merits, the present habeas petition is 4 barred as a second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Indeed, 5 Petitioner may not file a second or successive § 2255 petition unless he makes 6 a prima facie showing to the appropriate court of appeals that the petition is 7 based on: 8 (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and 9 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 10 evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 11 found the movant guilty of the offense; or

12 (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 13 to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 14 15 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Section 2255(h)(2) creates a jurisdictional bar to 16 Petitioner’s claims: “If the petitioner does not first obtain [] authorization [from 17 the appellate court], the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the second 18 or successive application.” United States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th 19 Cir. 2009). 20 The Court is unable to ascertain from the Petition the basis for 21 Petitioner’s challenge to his conviction and sentence. Nonetheless, Petitioner 22 has failed to present any evidence that he was granted leave to file a second 23 or successive § 2255 petition by the Ninth Circuit, let alone how any of the 24 exceptions that allow for a second or successive habeas petition apply here. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 The Court therefore DISMISSES the second or successive petition for 2 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without prejudice subject 3 to refiling if Petitioner obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit.1

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 1, 2022 6

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Court also notes that there may be a statute of limitations issue as there