United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR VACATION
AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE
C. KAY, SR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hector Lopez has filed a Letter/Motion for the Holloway
Doctrine through which he seeks the Court vacate his sentence
as to Counts 1, 2, and 4, deem his time served as to Count 5,
and grant him immediate release. ECF No. 331. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's
October 8, 1997, Petitioner was charged by a federal grand
jury with conspiracy to distribute more than 1 kilogram of
heroin, relieving and assisting co-defendant Francisco
Davalos in the use and possession of a firearm during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime which resulted in the
murder of Arturo Renteria-Hernandez, and carrying and using a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime
and causing the first degree murder of Renteria-Hernandez.
ECF No. 1. On July 29, 1997, the indictment was superseded to
charge Petitioner with: Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute 1
kilogram or more of Heroin; Count 2: Conspiracy to Distribute
more than 100 grams of Heroin; Count 4: Rendering Aid and
Comfort to Francisco Davalos that Davalos Had Committed the
Murder of Arturo Renteria-Hernandez; and Count 5: Carrying
and Using a Firearm During and In Relation to the Count 2
Drug Trafficking Conspiracy, and in the Course of that
Violation Committing the First Degree Murder of Armando
Renteria-Hernandez. ECF No. 207.
September 25, 1998, following a 9-day jury trial, Petitioner
was convicted of Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5. ECF No. 247. On April
19, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of 151 months for Counts 1, 2, and 4, to be served
concurrently, and life imprisonment for Count 5, to run
consecutive to the 151-month sentence for the other counts.
ECF No. 271.
2, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Sentence Reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. ECF Nos. 314, 315.
The Court held Petitioner did not qualify for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 in light of his mandatory
minimum sentence of life imprisonment for his conviction on
Count 5, and the Court denied the Motion. ECF No. 321.
27, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in
Federal Custody. ECF No. 322. Petitioner contended that he
qualified for relief pursuant to the Supreme Court's
decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551
(2016), wherein the Court held that the “residual
clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”) of 1984 was unconstitutionally vague and
a sentence imposed pursuant to that clause was therefore
unconstitutional. ECF Nos. 322, 328. This Court denied
Petitioner's motion, holding that Petitioner's
sentence was not based on the ACCA, nor did Petitioner assert
any arguments that the statutes for which he was convicted
contained unconstitutionally vague elements. ECF No. 328. The
Court denied a certificate of appealability because
“reasonable jurists could not find the Court's
ruling debatable.” ECF No. 328.
10, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant Letter/Motion for the
Holloway Doctrine. ECF No. 331. Petitioner asks the Court
vacate his sentence as to Counts 1, 2, and 4, deem his time
served as to Count 5, and grant him immediate release.
Id. On June 14, 2019, the Court entered an Order
directing the Government to file a response by July 14, 2019
and providing Petitioner the option to file a reply within
fifteen days of service of the Government's response. ECF
No. 335. The Government filed a Response on July 9, 2019. ECF
No. 336. Petitioner did not file a Reply. Pursuant to
District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(d), the Court finds it
appropriate to decide the instant matter without a hearing.
seeks to reduce his sentence under what is being called the
“Holloway Doctrine.” This district court has explained
its “limited authority to modify a sentence once it has
been imposed.” Acuna v. United States, No.
07-00615 SOM, 2016 WL 3747531, at *2 (D. Haw. July 8, 2016);
see also United States v. Diaz, No. CR
09-00294 LEK, 2018 WL 4119900, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 29, 2018)
(quoting same). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
a judgment of a conviction including a sentence to
imprisonment is final and may only be modified in three
instances: 1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons; 2) pursuant to a motion by the Government under Rule
35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and 3)
pursuant to a sentencing range lowered by United States
Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).
Under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
a court may correct a sentence that resulted from
arithmetical, technical, or other clear error only within 14
days after sentencing.
Holloway attempts to get around these limitations so
as to permit a reduction of sentence in the “interest
Acuna, 2016 WL 3747531 at *2; see also
Diaz, 2018 WL 4119900 at *1-2 (quoting same).