United States v. Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 F. App'x 412 (3rd Cir. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 F. App'x 412 (3rd Cir. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta (ca3, 2013-08-15)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#5 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) cited 1× in this case · 13 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta
3rd Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 Fed.Appx. 412, 412 (3d Cir.2012) (nonpre-cedential per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." HARRIS v. ARMEL
W.D. Pa. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 F. App’x 412 , 412 n.2 (3d Cir. 2012) (the inmate “points to no precedential opinion that suggests that the correction of a clerical error serves to either restart the limitations period or negate the existence of a prior attempt at collateral relief.”); May v. Kansas, 562 F. App’x 644, 645-646 (10th Cir. 2014) (amended journal entry of judgment correcting error that sentences would run consecutively did not make convictions non-final or reset the date of the state court judgment for either timeliness or second-or-successive purposes); se…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Luis H. Cano
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 Fed.Appx. 412 , 412 n. 2 (3d Cir.2012) (noting there is "no precedential opinion that suggests that the correction of a clerical error serves to either restart the limitations period or negate the existence of a prior attempt at collateral relief”); In re Martin, 398 Fed.Appx. 326, 327 (10th Cir.2010) (amended judgment that merely corrected clerical error was not a “new judgment” under Magwood v. *942 Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 , 130 S.Ct. 2788 , 177 L.Ed.2d 592 (2010)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Diodayan LEDESMA-CUESTA, Appellant
12-2126.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Aug 27, 2012.
476 F. App'x 412
Joan E. Burnes, Esq., Robert K. Reed, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America., Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta, Otisville, NY, pro se.
Ambro, Jordan, Per Curiam, Vanaskie.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Unpublished

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta appeals an order denying 1) his request for audita querela relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and 2) his motion for correction of a clerical error in the criminal judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. Finding no substantial question to be presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm. [1] In a previous opinion, we explained to the appellant that attacks on his federal conviction and sentence must generally be pursued via 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which in his case would require seeking authorization from this Court; he has not done so, and nothing in the interim has altered the unavailability of the writ of audita querela. See United States v. Ledesmar-Cuesta, 443 Fed.Appx. 685, 685-86 (3d Cir.2011). Furthermore, we agree with the District Court that there is no clear clerical error in the judgment, especially as the superseding indictment contains the same offense-conclusion date reflected in the judgment. [2] Summary affirmance is therefore appropriate. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir.2011) (per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

1

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although we have apparently not established, in this Circuit, a precise standard for review of Rule 36 motions, we need not do so today because appellant's request is infirm under any available standard.

2

. The appellant appears to admit that he seeks to correct his judgment because he believes that this will allow him to proceed anew via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without having to satisfy the "second or successive” requirements of 28 U.S.C § 2255(h) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). But Magwood v. Patterson,U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2788, 177 L.Ed.2d 592 (2010), upon which he relies, involved a re-sentencing leading to a revised state-court judgment. Id. at 2796. He points to no prec-edential opinion that suggests that the correction of a clerical error serves to either restart the limitations period or negate the existence of a prior attempt at collateral relief.