From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ceballos v. U.S.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 20, 2008
05 Civ. 3008 (DLC) 97 Cr. 592 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2008)

Opinion

05 Civ. 3008 (DLC) 97 Cr. 592.

March 20, 2008

Pro se Petitioner: Ronnie Ceballos, Inez, Kentucky.

For the United States of America: Jillian B. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, New York.


MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER


Through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, received by this district's Pro Se Office on March 9, 2005, Ronnie Ceballos ("Ceballos") attacked a sentence imposed on March 11, 2004, on the grounds that the Court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment before "fully obtaining all the facts," and that his attorney did not have time to obtain documents that would have supported a lesser sentence. The petition is denied.

This case has a lengthy history. The Honorable Mary Johnson Lowe sentenced Ceballos in 1991 principally to sixty months' imprisonment following his conviction for armed bank robbery. He was released on April 22, 1997, and arrested on May 30 for bank robbery. Ceballos pleaded guilty and on February 25, 2000 was sentenced by this Court principally to sixty-three months' imprisonment on the new charges, and three months' imprisonment on the violation of supervised release. The sentences were imposed to run concurrently. The sixty-three-month sentence reflected a substantial downward departure, over the Government's objection, from a guidelines range of 188 to 235 months' imprisonment.

Ceballos began supervised release on approximately January 14, 2002, and was arrested on September 2, for assault. Ceballos was accused of pointing a knife at a gas station attendant and stabbing him. He was convicted on August 26, 2003 in state court of criminal possession of a weapon and sentenced to one year in prison.

When Ceballos was brought before this Court in 2003 on charges that he had violated his supervised release, his appointed counsel argued that he should receive a reduced sentence and be given drug and mental health treatment. To allow evaluation of this option, sentence was adjourned. On December 29, 2003, the Court imposed a term of imprisonment until January 9, 2004, with the condition that Ceballos enter an in-patient program on that day and continue in the program for eighteen months. Ceballos left the in-patient program nineteen days after being admitted to the program. Ceballos was arrested soon thereafter, admitted on March 11, 2004 that he had violated his supervised release conditions, and was sentenced principally to thirty-six months' imprisonment less time already served. This was the maximum sentence that could be imposed. Ceballos was advised of his right to appeal and did not file an appeal.

Ceballos filed this habeas petition on September 19, 2005, seeking a reduced sentence. The Government submitted its opposition on October 19, 2005, but Ceballos never submitted his reply, which was due on December 2, 2005. Two letters from Ceballos dated October 31 and December 1 were returned to him for failure to serve the Government. There was no further communication from Ceballos, who had been transferred to a halfway house as of January 17, 2006.

Ceballos was indicted for bank robbery on July 6, 2006, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced by the Honorable Jed Rakoff on March 2, 2007 principally to 180 months' imprisonment. Recently, this Court became aware that it had never acted on Ceballos' petition.

With the passage of time and Ceballos' further conviction, this petition has become moot. In any event, the petition is meritless. Ceballos failed to appeal his sentence, and has not shown any cause, prejudice, or actual innocence to excuse that failure. Moreover, Ceballos utterly fails to show that his assigned counsel, who vigorously represented him and succeeded in obtaining a very lenient sentence for Ceballos in 2003, was ineffective. Even at his sentencing in March 2004, counsel continued to argue strenuously on Ceballos' behalf. Moreover, Ceballos has failed to show that any missing documentation would have had a material effect on the proceedings. The Court was thoroughly familiar with Ceballos and was amply equipped to evaluate all of the relevant factors in imposing sentence.

Ceballos' September 19, 2005 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. No certificate of appealability shall issue. Ceballos has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right, and appellate review is therefore not warranted as to any claim. Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Ceballos' habeas petition having been denied, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss the petition.

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Ceballos v. U.S.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 20, 2008
05 Civ. 3008 (DLC) 97 Cr. 592 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2008)
Case details for

Ceballos v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:RONNIE CEBALLOS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 20, 2008

Citations

05 Civ. 3008 (DLC) 97 Cr. 592 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2008)