United States v. Sanchez-Merino

DLD-156 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 25-1426 & 25-1427 ___________ ERIC BARTOLI, Appellant v. DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN LORETTO FCI ___________ ERIC BARTOLI, Appellant v. WARDEN LORETTO FCI ____________________________________ On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 3:23-cv-00204 & 3:23-cv-00057) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Patricia L. Dodge ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 22, 2025 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 10, 2025) _________ OPINION * * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not  _________ PER CURIAM Pro se Appellant Eric Bartoli appeals from District Court orders dismissing his two petitions for writ of habeas corpus that he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm. I Bartoli fled to Peru after a grand jury indicted him for crimes related to his running a Ponzi scheme. Years later, he was arrested and extradited to face those charges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. He pled guilty in that Court to charges related to that Ponzi scheme. Bartoli received a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay $42 million in restitution. Bartoli’s direct appeal proved unsuccessful. See United States v. Bartoli, 728 F. App’x 424 (6th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, Bartoli v. United States, 587 U.S. 925 (2019). Bartoli then sought collateral relief by filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255 See United States v. Bartoli, C.A. No. 23-3983, 2024 WL 4987352, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2024) (discussing Bartoli’s collateral proceedings). While Bartoli’s § 2255 proceedings were pending, he filed two § 2241 habeas corpus petitions in the Western District of Pennsylvania (where he was incarcerated) in April 2023 and September 2023. In his April 2023 petition, Bartoli argued that his extradition to the United States from Peru constitute binding precedent. 2 prior to his conviction was illegal and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, and that trial counsel’s failure to raise this issue constituted ineffective assistance. In his September 2023 petition, Bartoli challenged the validity of his sentence pursuant to the Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses as well as the Eighth Amendment. On February 25, 2025, the District Court 1 dismissed both petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Bartoli appealed. This Court notified the parties that these appeals, which have since been consolidated, might be subject to summary action. Appellees filed responses to that notification. Bartoli did not. II We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In reviewing the District Court’s dismissals of Bartoli’s § 2241 habeas corpus petitions, we exercise plenary review over its legal conclusions and review findings of fact for clear error. See O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s decisions if the appeals fail to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6; see also Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). III Section 2241 gives a District Court jurisdiction over “the petition of a federal prisoner who is [attacking] not the validity but the execution of his sentence.” Cardona v. 1 The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) in both cases. 3 Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012). Here, however, Bartoli challeng

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2404 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:22-cr-06003-MKD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* TOMMIE SLACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 5, 2025** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Tommie Slack (“Appellant”) appeals his 108-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute fentanyl under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vi). Appellant disputes the imposition of a two-level * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm during commission of the offense. Reviewing the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo and the application of those guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion, United States v. Parlor, 2 F.4th 807, 811 (9th Cir. 2021), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. There was no error in the application of the firearm enhancement. Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), “the government simply bears the burden of proving that the weapon was possessed at the time of the offense.” United States v. Alaniz, 69 F.4th 1124, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2023). The Government demonstrated constructive possession by bringing forward evidence tying Appellant to the vehicle where the firearm was found, including: a repair receipt for the vehicle in Appellant’s name, Appellant’s reference to the vehicle as “his Benz,” his fiancé taking control of the vehicle after his arrest, Appellant’s phone call with Agent Mitchell to challenge the removal of his personal items from the vehicle, and Appellant’s awareness of the vehicle’s change in performance after his arrest. Nor was there “clear error” in determining the cooperating defendant, who further tied Appellant to the vehicle and the firearm, was credible. See United States v. Baker, 58 F.4th 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2023). Together, these facts demonstrate “a sufficient connection between the defendant and the item to support the inference that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the item.” United States v. 2 24-2404 Baldon, 956 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted) (cleaned up). Nothing in the record suggests that there was improper reliance on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(b) as an alternative reason for applying the two-level firearm enhancement based on Appellant’s personal possession of the firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). AFFIRMED. 3 24-2404

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL ALBARRAN, No. 24-2758 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 3:22-cv-05788-JNW v. MEMORANDUM* DAN WHITE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Jamal N. Whitehead, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 5, 2025** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Appellant Miguel Albarran (“Albarran”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition as untimely, contending he should be entitled to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). equitable tolling. We review de novo, Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc), and we affirm. Albarran was initially convicted of second-degree rape for assaulting his girlfriend’s thirteen-year-old daughter and sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years in prison under Washington state law. He later brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his trial counsel, alleging that his counsel did not adequately advise him to take a plea agreement. After unsuccessful state post- conviction proceedings ended, Albarran’s post-conviction counsel miscalculated a filing deadline and failed to timely file Albarran’s federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). To qualify for equitable tolling to excuse this late filing, Albarran must demonstrate (1) diligent pursuit of his rights and (2) some extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). However, miscalculating filing deadlines is not an extraordinary circumstance but rather run-of-the-mill attorney error that “is simply not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, particularly in the postconviction context where prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel.” Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007); see also Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 647 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Attorney mistakes that warrant the label ‘garden variety’—like miscalculating a filing deadline—are the sort of mistakes that, regrettably, lawyers make all the 2 24-2758 time.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the district court properly rejected Albarran’s request for equitable tolling and dismissed his habeas petition as untimely. AFFIRMED. 3 24-2758

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO ROSAS MORLET, No. 24-1735 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-881-567 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 5, 2025** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Rosas Morlet, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously granted the parties’ joint motion to submit this matter without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(f). adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ and provides additional reasoning, we review both decisions. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition. The agency determined that Rosas Morlet was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he did not establish that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S. citizen children under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We have jurisdiction to review this determination as a mixed question of fact and law, but because “this mixed question is primarily factual,” our “review is deferential.” Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024).1 The agency’s findings of fact underlying this determination—“[f]or instance, an IJ’s factfinding on credibility, the seriousness of a family member’s medical condition, or the level of financial support a noncitizen currently provides”—are unreviewable. Id. To establish an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” a petitioner “must prove that his citizen relatives would suffer hardship substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from” his removal. Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 949 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and 1 While Wilkinson did not define the “deferential” review required for review of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determinations, 601 U.S. at 225, we recently held that “substantial evidence” review applies, see Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, No. 21-927, slip op. at 11 (9th Cir.). No matter what “deferential” review applies, we would deny the petition. 2 24-1735 citation omitted). Rosas Morlet argues that the agency failed to consider the possible future progression of his daughter’s hypothyroidism and improperly weighed the evidence as to Rosas Morlet’s financial and emotional support for his children. We disagree. The agency acknowledged that Rosas Morlet’s daughter suffers from hypothyroidism, that Rosas Morlet’s children rely upon him financially, and that Rosas Morlet’s removal to Mexico would cause his children emotional hardship. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining the agency must consider “the ages, health, and circumstances of qualifying relatives” (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted)). The agency also found that Rosas Morlet’s daughter would continue to receive medical treatment in Arizona if Rosas Morlet were removed to Mexico, so did indeed consider the possible future progression of the daughter’s medical condition. The agency ultimately determined that although Rosas Morlet’s removal would impact his children financially and emotionally, those impacts were not “beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from” his removal. Chete Juarez, 376 F.3d at 949 n.3 (citation omitted).2 Given the “deferential” standard of review, 2 In a single sentence, Rosas Morlet also argues that “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship . . . is unconstitutionally vague and is extremely subjective.” Because Rosas Morlet does not develop this argument further, we need not address this bare assertion. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We 3 24-1735 Wil

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0284n.06 Case No. 23-1640 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Jun 09, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF DANYELLE AMUND PHILLIPS, JR., ) MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Danyelle Phillips Jr. pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, Phillips reserved the right to seek appellate review of the district court’s determination that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Constitution on its face. He does so now. But our court recently held that section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024). As Phillips recognizes, this panel can’t overrule that decision, so we affirm.