United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Cano, an inmate at Terre Haute U.S. Penitentiary, seeks a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3). For the reasons explained in this Entry, his
petition for writ of habeas corpus is
Cano contests the accuracy of the respondent's rendition
of the facts in his return to the order to show cause and has
moved to strike pages 1-4 of the return. Because the facts
disputed by Mr. Cano do not affect the Court's analysis
of the claims in his petition, his motion to strike pages 1-4
of the return, dkt. , is denied as moot.
Consistent with this decision, the Court will not recount the
underlying facts of the case in this Entry.
September 1998, following a three month jury trial in the
Southern District of Florida, Mr. Cano was convicted of 69
counts related to a nationwide cocaine and marijuana
trafficking and money laundering network. The district court
sentenced Mr. Cano to one mandatory life sentence, 12
concurrent life sentences, and 56 concurrent sentences of 240
the assistance of counsel, Mr. Cano appealed. Among other
things, he argued that he was entitled to a new trial or
resentencing based on the Supreme Court's ruling in
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). United States v. Cano, 289 F.3d 1354, 1357
n. 4 (11th Cir. 2002). The Eleventh Circuit rejected Mr.
Cano's Apprendi claim without discussion.
Id. However, it did order the district court to
vacate and dismiss one count of possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, but otherwise it affirmed Mr.
Cano's convictions and sentences on the other 68 counts.
The dismissal of Count 13 had no practical effect on Mr.
Cano's sentence, it merely removed one of the life
sentences ordered to run concurrently.
November 2004, Mr. Cano, with retained counsel, filed a
motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. Among other things, he renewed his argument that he was
entitled to a new trial based on Apprendi. Cano
v. United States, No. 1:04-cv-22767-JAL, 2008 WL
4755676, at *1 (S.D. F.L. Oct. 27, 2008). Recognizing that
the Eleventh Circuit had summarily dismissed the
Apprendi claim, and noting that Apprendi
was not retroactive on collateral review, the district court
denied the § 2255 motion after also finding that his
remaining claims had no merit. Id.
2009, Mr. Cano filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2241, in the Middle District of Florida. He
argued for collateral relief on two grounds attacking the
jurisdiction of the district court over his criminal
prosecution. The Middle District dismissed the petition
because Mr. Cano previously had been denied § 2255
relief and § 2255's saving clause did not apply. The
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal
of the petition. Cano v. Warden, FCC Coleman- USP I,
358 Fed.Appx. 107 (11th Cir.2009).
this § 2241 petition, Mr. Cano alleges that:
1) under Rosemond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1240
(2014), he is factually innocent of his convictions for
aiding and abetting;
2) under United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507
(2008), his money laundering convictions and sentences are
3) under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531
(2004) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), his mandatory life sentences are unconstitutional;
4) under Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198
(2001), his attorneys were ineffective for failing to address
Amendments 505 and 506 of the Sentencing Guidelines;
5) his sentences were imposed in violation of Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the superseding
indictment only identified a ...