United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
OPINION AND ORDER
R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. 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.
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.) 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).)
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.)
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
(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
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).
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.)
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 ...