United States v. Lam

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TANH HUU LAM, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 7, 2010

NO. CR. S-97-0054 WBS (E.D. Cal. May. 7, 2010)

Opinion

NO. CR. S-97-0054 WBS.

May 7, 2010

ORDER

WILLIAM SHUBB, District Judge

By a written Memorandum and Order filed March 6, 2003, this court granted the government's motion to dismiss Lam's petition to vacate, set aside or correct his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On March 26, 2003, the court granted petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability on the question of whether he procedurally defaulted on his claims because he did not raise them on his direct appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this court's order on December 19, 2003. United States v. Lam, 84 Fed.Appx 892, C.A.9, 2003.

Lam attempted to file another motion to vacate his plea, pursuant to Rule 11(3) of the federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on January 18, 2005. By written order filed May 5, 2005, this court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Lam's petition on the ground that it was in substance a successive section 2255 petition, which was precluded by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 because petitioner had not obtained a certification to file a successive petition from the Court of Appeals. This court denied Lam's motion for reconsideration of that order on May 18, 2005. On April 19, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed this court's orders on Lam's second section 2255 petition. United States v. Lam, 228 Fed.Appx. 739, C.A.9, 2007.

Now, more than seven years after this court dismissed his first petition, Lam moves for reconsideration of that order. The motion simply rehashes arguments that were either made or could have been made in his direct appeal or in his original petition. Lam has set forth no valid reason why this court should reopen his original section 2255 proceeding or change or modify its ruling on that motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tanh Huu Lam's petition for reconsideration of this court's Order of March 6, 2003, dismissing his petition to vacate, set aside or correct his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.