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.

Robles v. Wilson

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

March 28, 2018

NORBERTO ADOLIO ROBLES, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TEERY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner Norberto Adolio Robles, a federal prisoner confined at FMC--Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas, at the time the petition was filed.[1] After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the related briefs and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the § 2241 petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Norberto Adolio Robles was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston division, in cause number 4:08-CR-374-1 of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine involving five kilograms or more, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release. See United States v. Robles, No.4:08-CR-374-1 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2010.)[2] The Respondent provided copies of several records from the underlying criminal case and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (App. (doc. 11-1).)

         Robles filed a direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the case was initially remanded to the district court for the district court to make a determination of whether Robles had counsel for his sentencing proceeding. United States v. Robles, 445 F. App'x 771, 783-784 (5th Cir. 2011). Upon remand, the district court determined that Robles had standby counsel and that counsel's representation was adequate. United States v. Robles, No.4:08-CR-374-1, ECF No. 243 (Findings and Conclusions)(S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2011.) After those findings were made and the case returned to the Fifth Circuit, however, that court issued an opinion, on March 7, 2012, determining that Robles had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing, vacated the original sentence, and remanded the case again for the district court to resentence Robles. United States v. Robles, No. 10-20344, (5th Cir. Mar. 7. 2012); (App. (doc. 11-1, at 1-6.) In an amended judgment entered on May 17, 2012, Robles was again resentenced to 120 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release. United States v. Robles, No.4:08-CR-374-1, ECF No. 262 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2012.)

         Robles then appealed again. In his appellate brief filed on March 22, 2012, Robles claimed:

(1) that the use of unauthorized surveillance, “tactics, ” and “devices” violated his and his family's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights;
(2) he was arrested and detained without probable cause and without arrest or search warrants; he was held for three days without being advised of his Miranda rights or appearing before a magistrate violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights;
(3) the trial judge violated Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) and (e)(1) and his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by calling him into chambers outside the presence of his counsel and the government to negotiate a guilty plea; and
(4) his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he abandoned him in the judge's chambers, acted as both defense attorney and prosecutor, and “ill advising [him] on his options and rights.” (App. (doc. 11-1, at 22-32.)

         On January 24, 2013, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for presenting no non-frivolous grounds. United States v. Robles, 518 F. App'x 303, 304 (5th Cir. 2013).

         On August 21, 2014, Robles filed a motion under § 2255 in the convicting district court, asserting that the trial judge brokered his guilty plea, his counsel did not ensure that his plea was voluntary, and his statutory minimum sentence was excessive. (App. (doc. 11-1, at 41-42.) On August 10, 2015, the § 2255 motion was denied. (Id. at 42.)

         Robles then sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Fifth Circuit, contending that the trial “judge improperly participated in plea negotiations and forced him to plead guilty, ” and claiming that his “trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by abandoning him during the plea proceedings.” (Id. at 43-44.) Robles also raised for the first time that the district court provided him fraudulent transcripts and the government engaged in malicious prosecution. (Id.) On October 3, 2016, the court of appeals denied Robles's request for COA, but also considered Robles' motion to file a supplemental COA brief as a motion for ...


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.