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.

Farfan v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

March 8, 2018

GENOVEVA FARFAN
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING GENOVEVA FARFAN'S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion [989] of Genoveva Farfan (“Farfan”) to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After due consideration of the Motion, related pleadings, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion that Farfan is not entitled to relief and that her § 2255 Motion should be denied in accordance with Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (the “Section 2255 Rules”) without the requirement of an answer by the United States Attorney and without an evidentiary hearing.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A Grand Jury returned an eight-count Indictment [3] against Farfan and 16 co-Defendants on April 9, 2014, followed by a nine-count Superseding Indictment [75] against Farfan and 17 co-Defendants on July 8, 2014, and finally a nine-count Second Superseding Indictment [156] against Farfan and 19 co-Defendants on October 7, 2014. On May 16, 2016, Farfan pleaded guilty to Count 2ss of the Second Superseding Indictment [156] which charged that Farfan and her co-Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired with each other and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit the following offenses against the United States: (a) identify theft as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7); (b) use of unauthorized access devices as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3); (c) use of unauthorized access devices as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5); and (d) theft of government funds as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 641, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. 2d Superseding Indictment [156] at 27-29.

         On July 12, 2016, the Court sentenced Farfan to a 60-month term of imprisonment as to Count 2ss. See July 12, 2016, Minute Entry. The Court also imposed a three-year term of supervised release, a $2, 500.00 fine, and a $100.00 special assessment. See Id. The Judgment was entered on July 18, 2016. J. [564] at 1-6. Farfan did not appeal.

         On or about February 25, 2018, Farfan placed the present Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the prison mailing system, see Mot. [989] at 10, and the Motion was filed of record in this case on March 5, 2018, see Id. at 1. Farfan asks the Court to reduce her sentence and/or place her on home confinement for the remainder of her sentence, or alternatively, to “parole [her] out of prison.” Id. at 10.

         In support of this request, Farfan cites as her first ground for relief personal reasons for seeking a reduced sentence and/or home confinement. See Id. at 3-4. In her second and third grounds, Farfan appears to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Farfan references her attorney's experience and asserts that he “wasn't very helpful, ” id. at 5, and she states that she does not believe she was “represented properly, ” id. at 6. With respect to the timeliness of her Motion, Farfan states that “I wasn't advised or informed by my attorney and not made aware that there was a motion I can submit or a time frame to it.” Id. at 9.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Farfan's Motion was not filed within the applicable one-year limitations period.

Rule 4(b) of the Section 2255 Rules provides that
[if] it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.

Section 2255 Rule 4(b).

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), “a one year statute of limitations governs habeas motions filed by federal inmates.” United States v. Wheaten, 826 F.3d 843, 846 (5th ...


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.