Alamilla v. Jaimison

Background

Salvador Alamilla filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at FCI Otisville. He challenged the sentence imposed by the Southern District of Texas after his conviction for possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The sentencing court imposed 144 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal, and the Southern District of Texas previously denied Alamilla’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Alamilla argued that the sentencing court improperly used offense level 38 instead of level 34 under the sentencing guidelines. He also argued that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the calculation.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Section 2241 generally addresses the execution or administration of a sentence, such as sentence calculations by prison officials, while Section 2255 generally provides the procedure for a federal prisoner challenging the conviction or sentence imposed by the trial court.

Because Alamilla challenged the sentencing court’s calculation and his attorney’s failure to object to that sentence, the court concluded that his claims challenged the imposition of the sentence rather than its execution. The court therefore recharacterized the petition as a Section 2255 motion.

A Section 2255 motion is second or successive when an earlier Section 2255 motion was decided on the merits. The court found that Alamilla’s earlier motion had been denied on the merits. A second or successive Section 2255 motion requires authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals before it may proceed in the district court. The court determined that the Fifth Circuit was the appropriate court because the challenged conviction and sentence arose in the Southern District of Texas.

Disposition

The court transferred the second or successive Section 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, rather than deciding the current motion’s sentencing or ineffective-assistance claims. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York.

The court also stated that Alamilla had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on April 11, 2023.