{"id":225083,"date":"2016-04-11T06:00:02","date_gmt":"2016-04-10T20:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/?p=225083"},"modified":"2016-04-11T06:00:02","modified_gmt":"2016-04-10T20:00:02","slug":"motion-set-aside-289-month-jail-term-career-offender-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/motion-set-aside-289-month-jail-term-career-offender-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Motion to set aside 289-month jail term on career offender dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Manglona\"
Manglona<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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. <\/p>\n

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona directed the clerk of court to transfer Pangelinan\u2019s motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Manglona construes Pangelinan\u2019s motion as a successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence.<\/p>\n

Pangelinan filed a motion requesting the court to appoint a counsel for him and grant him a resentencing hearing.<\/p>\n

The defendant is currently incarcerated in federal prison in Kentucky after he was slapped with a 289-month prison term in 2005.<\/p>\n

Pangelinan was sentenced as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In Johnson\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Because of this statute the applicable sentencing range rose from 230-257 months to 262-327 months.<\/p>\n

The court accepted the defendant\u2019s change of plea on March 2, 2005. On June 3, 2005, the court sentenced him to 289 months.<\/p>\n

Pangelinan did not directly appeal any aspect of his conviction or sentence.<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Manglona said without certification, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion.<\/p>\n

Manglona said Pangelinan does not state under what statute, rule, or other authority he makes his latest motion.<\/p>\n

Pangelinan asserts that a recent Supreme Court ruling calls into question whether his sentencing enhancement as a career offender was lawful.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Manglona said Pangelinan\u2019s claim goes to the merits and does not allege a defect in the integrity of judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the judge said, the motion must be treated as a second or successive Section 2255 habeas motion.<\/p>\n

As such, Manglona said, the court has no jurisdiction to consider it without certification from the Ninth Circuit. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The federal court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":225097,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[10838,1925,10624,139],"class_list":["post-225083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-local-news","tag-hobbs-act","tag-ninth-circuit","tag-sentencing-guidelines","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=225083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225083\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/225097"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}