United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken United States District Judge
Pamela Jean Gygi brings this habeas corpus action under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 prose. The "Standing Due
Notice" (doc. 59), which this Court has construed as a
§ 2255 petition, is DENIED fr the fellowing reasons.
January 2017, petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of use
of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a
murder-fr-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 and one
count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of that
murder-fr-hire scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c). On May 3, 2017, this Court sentenced petitioner to
120 months imprisonment. A judgment of conviction was entered
May 4, 2017. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of her
March 24, 2019, more than a year after the judgment was
entered, petitioner filed a pro se motion titled
"Standing Due Notice" that appears to be a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner challenges her conviction on the grounds that this
Court lacked jurisdiction over her.
28 U.S.C. § 2255, a defendant may move to have her
sentence vacated or corrected if it was "imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). But that motion must
be filed within one year from the date on which a
petitioner's conviction becomes final, unless an
exception applies. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Here, no
exceptions apply. Petitioner's claims are not delayed due
to a government impediment, they are not based on a right
newly recognized by the Supreme Court, and they are not newly
discovered. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(2)-(4).
defendant's judgment of conviction becomes final when the
time for filing a notice of appeal expires, 14 days after the
judgment is entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A);
United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th
Cir. 2001). Here, the judgment was entered May 4, 2017. Since
petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, the judgment
became final on May 18, 2017. The one-year statute of
limitations expired on May 18, 2018. Petitioner's March
24, 2019 filing was thus untimely, and her claim is
in her plea agreement, petitioner waived appeal of "any
aspect of her conviction and sentence including all
post-conviction and habeas corpus motions," except for
ineffective assistance of counsel. Plea Agreement (doc. 32)
¶ 8. Here petitioner alleges lack of jurisdiction, not
ineffective assistance of counsel. She thus waived her right
to raise this claim.
even if petitioner's claim were not time-barred or
waived, it is without merit. Petitioner's claim appears
to be based on sovereign citizen beliefs. See United
States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 60405 (D. Md.
2005) (describing the sovereign citizen belief system);
United States u. Neal, 776 F.3d 645, 657 (9th Cir.
2015) (holding that even though defendant's sovereign
citizen beliefs were nonsensical, they did not indicate
incompetence, citing Mitchell).
argues that the district court lacks jurisdiction because she
committed the crime in Oregon, not "within Federal
Territory." Petition at 3. But this Court exercised
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1958, which has been held
a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. See United
States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475, 488-89 (4th Cir. 2013)
(holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) is constitutional);
United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 691 (9th Cir.
2015) (holding that telephone calls qualify as use of a
facility of interstate commerce). Thus, regardless of
petitioner's sovereign citizen beliefs, the Court has
jurisdiction over her.
order in a § 2255 proceeding may not be appealed unless
a judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability may not
issue unless "the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473 (2000), the Supreme Court explained that a
certificate of appealability under § 2253(c) is
warranted when a habeas prisoner makes "a demonstration
that . . .
a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . .
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner
or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further." Id. at
483-84 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
case, the Court concludes that petitioner has failed to make
the required showing and so declines to ...