United States District Court, D. Minnesota
E. Lackner, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for
Sanchez-Gonzalez, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Michael J. Davis Judge United States District Court
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Karina
Sanchez-Gonzalez's Pro Se Motion to Vacate under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. [Docket No. 163]
19, 2009, Karina Sanchez-Gonzalez was indicted for Conspiracy
to Distribute Methamphetamine, Count 1, and Aiding and
Abetting Possession with Intent to Distribute
Methamphetamine, Count 6. [Docket No. 8] On September 3,
2009, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against
Sanchez-Gonzalez as to Count 1, Conspiracy to Distribute 50
Grams or More of Methamphetamine (Actual), in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846; and
Count 6, Aiding and Abetting Possession with Intent to
Distribute 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine (Actual), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. § 2.
January 6, 2010, the Court sentenced Sanchez-Gonzalez to 120
months in prison, the statutory mandatory minimum.
appealed both her conviction and her sentence to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the
conviction and sentencing. United States v.
Sanchez-Gonzalez, 643 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2011).
September 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a
Person in Federal Custody. [Docket No. 136] On February 14,
2012, the Court denied Petitioner's § 2255 habeas
petition and denied the certificate of appealability. [Docket
No. 143] Petitioner appealed and, on July 2, 2012, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the certificate of
appealability and the appeal was dismissed. [Docket No. 151]
January 7, 2013, Petitioner has filed a Pro Se Motion to
Reopen Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b). [Docket No. 154]
Based on the content of the motion, the Court determined that
the Rule 60(b) motion was, in fact, a second habeas motion.
Because it has not been certified by the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals, the Court was required to dismiss it. [Docket No.
has now filed a third habeas motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. She bases the current motion on her allegation that the
Court should apply a role reduction for minor or minimal role
under U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 794. The Court notes that,
at sentencing, Defendant did receive a two-level reduction
for minor role. However, due to the application of the
statutory mandatory minimum, the mandatory minimum sentence
was 120 months.
Standard for Relief under ...