UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JUAN ANTONIO ZAVALA, Case No. 1:18-cv-00476-BLW Petitioner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND v. ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Juan Antonio Zavala’s Notice (Dkt. 6), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion. BACKGROUND In May 2004, a jury convicted Zavala of two crimes: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; and (2) distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The Court sentenced Zavala to 360 months’ imprisonment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Zavala,

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). In May 2009, Zavala filed a motion to vacate his sentence under

. Zavala claimed his counsel was ineffective by failing to advise him of the possible benefits of pleading guilty without a plea agreement and failing to investigate mitigating evidence. After appointing counsel for Zavala and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the motion. See Zavala v. United States, No. 1:09-cv-212-BLW (D. Idaho

July 31, 2012). In October 2018, over six years after the Court denied his § 2255 motion, Zavala filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

.” See Dkt. 1. Despite its label, the Court construed that petition as a second or successive petition under

and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. After that, Zavala filed the

pending Notice. In this Notice, Zavala rejects the Court’s Memorandum and Decision Order as “Forever Condemned, Void and Cancelled.” He attaches a copy of the Court’s decision to his Notice, and the decision contains this typewritten stamp across each page: CONDEMNED CONDEMNED CONDEMNED VOID VOID VOID CANCELLED CANCELLED CANCELLED

By: Affiant, Mr. Juan Antonio Zavala Executed: July 22, 2019 PS Form 3811, 7018 1130 0000 0064 5589

________________________ /s/ Juan Antonio Zavala Autographed under:

DISCUSSION The most logical construction of the pending Notice is that Zavala is simply informing the Court that that he disagrees with the decision. Charitably construed, however, Zavala may be letting the Court know that he wants the Court to reconsider its Court’s July 15, 2019 Memorandum Decision. Zavala has not, however even addressed — much less satisfied — the standards for reconsideration. Accordingly, to the extent Zavala is, in fact, seeking reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision, that request will be denied. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Zavala’s Notice (Dkt. 6) construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. (2) To the extent a certificate of appealability is required, the Court declines to issue one.

AGE DATED: March 4, 2020 ©. yr Win Si fm ‘ } NN ‘js/ B.Lynn Winmill NRICT OF U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3