Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hirano v. United States

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 20, 2017

DOUGLAS AKIRA HIRANO, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Cr. No. 99-00465 ACK

          ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE

          Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, ECF No. 88.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On April 26, 2001, Douglas Akira Hirano (“Petitioner”) pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to all six counts of an Indictment returned by a federal grand jury on September 23, 1999. ECF Nos. 9, 49. The six counts in the Indictment were:

(1) knowingly and intentionally manufacturing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A);
(2) knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute 50 or more grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A);
(3) knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute 5 or more grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B);
(4) knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C);
(5) knowingly and intentionally possessing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); and
(6) knowingly possessing ammunition, having been previously convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e)(1).

See Indictment, ECF No. 9. On February 24, 2003, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 262 months as to each of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; and 24 months as to Count 5, with all terms to run concurrently. Judgment in a Criminal Case, ECF No. 69.

         On January 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 73. The Court denied his petition on May 15, 2006. ECF No. 76. Petitioner appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's denial on September 23, 2008. ECF No. 82.

         On June 6, 2016, Petitioner filed an application for leave to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 88. The Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner's application on January 25, 2017 and ordered that the instant motion be deemed filed on June 6, 2016. ECF No. 87. On February 7, 2017, this Court stayed Petitioner's motion pending the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544. ECF No. 92. The Supreme Court decided Beckles on March 6, 2017. 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Pursuant to this Court's order, ECF No. 94, Petitioner filed a supplemental memorandum in support of his motion on March 29, 2017. ECF No. 95 (“Supp. Mem.”). The government filed its Response on May 9, 2017. ECF No. 100 (“Response”). Petitioner filed his Reply on May 12, 2017. ECF No. 101 (“Reply”).

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Court incorporates the factual background of its previous order denying Petitioner's first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Hirano v. United States, Civ. No. 06-00010 ACK/BMK, Cr. No. 99-00465 ACK, 2006 WL 1343658, at *1-2 (D. Haw. May 15, 2006), aff'd, 294 F. App'x 313 (9th Cir. 2008).

         SENTENCING

         The Court sentenced Petitioner in accordance with the Presentence Investigation Report and United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). Hirano, 2006 WL 1343658, at *1-2.[1]Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1), the Court sentenced him in compliance with the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time the offenses occurred in 1999, which guidelines were mandatory. See id. at *2; United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005) (rendering previously mandatory sentencing guidelines advisory).

         For purposes of calculating the base offense levels for each of Petitioner's counts, the Court grouped Count 1 with Count 2, and then grouped Count 2 with Counts 3 and 4. Hirano, 2006 WL 1343658, at *2. The base offense level for these counts was 34. Id. The Court then determined the base offense level for Count 5 to be 6. Id. at *3. Finally, the Court determined that the base offense level for Count 6 was 24 as Petitioner had prior felony convictions for crimes of violence. Id.

         The Court then calculated Petitioner's multiple count adjusted offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. The highest base offense level was 34, for the group containing Counts 1-4. As the base offense levels for Count 5 and Count 6 were nine or more levels less serious, each was disregarded. As such, Petitioner's adjusted offense level remained at 34, based on Counts 1-4. See id.

         The Court then turned to whether there were any applicable enhancements. First, the Court determined that Petitioner was a career offender within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as he had at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence. As such, the Court increased his offense level to 37. Id.

         Next, the Court separately determined that Petitioner was also an armed career criminal within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), as Count 6 involved a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and Petitioner had been previously convicted of at least three violent felonies committed on separate occasions. See ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.