Vargas-Reyes v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER Summarily Dismisses Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/4/2012.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Criminal Case No. 11cr465-MMA
Plaintiff,

[Related Civil Case No. 12cv1091-MMA]

13
vs.

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

14
15
16

[Doc. No. 26]

CESAR VARGAS REYES,
Defendant.

17
18

Defendant Cesar Vargas Reyes, proceeding pro se, moves to vacate and correct his sentence

19

pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2255. Defendant argues that his counsel was

20

ineffective for failing to object to a sixteen level increase to his base offense level due to a prior drug

21

trafficking conviction. Defendant also argues that he is entitled to relief for post conviction

22

rehabilitation. For the following reasons, the Court summarily DISMISSES the motion.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-1-

11cr465/12cv1091

1
2

BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to a single felony count of being a deported alien

3

found in the United States, in violation of Title 8 of the United States Code, sections 1326(a) and

4

(b). See Doc. No. 15. The plea agreement provided that the parties would jointly recommend a base

5

offense level of 8, a sixteen level increase for a prior aggravated felony conviction, a three level

6

decrease for acceptance of responsibility, and a two level decrease for fast track disposition,

7

amounting to a total offense level of 19.1 The government agreed to recommend a sentence at the

8

low end of the applicable guideline range. The parties made no agreement as to Defendant’s

9

criminal history category. The plea agreement provided:

10
11
12

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in this plea agreement, defendant
waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the
guilty plea, conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the Court
imposes a custodial sentence above the greater of the high end of the guideline range
recommended by the Government pursuant to this. agreement at the time of sentencing
or statutory mandatory minimum term, if applicable.

13
14
15

See id. at 3.
Subsequent to the June 2, 2011 plea colloquy, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued

16

findings that Defendant understood he was giving up his rights to appeal and to collateral attack, and

17

that he otherwise understood the plea agreement in its entirety. See Doc. No. 16. Judge Skomal

18

further found that Defendant was competent to enter the plea and that he gave a “knowing and

19

intelligent waiver of each [of his] rights . . . .” Id. On October 3, 2011, this Court accepted

20

Defendant’s guilty plea and sentenced Defendant to 41 months in prison, followed by a three year

21

term of supervised release. See Doc. No. 25. Defendant waived his appeal rights. See Doc. No. 24.

22

Defendant now moves to vacate and correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant

23

raises two grounds for relief: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed

24

to object to the sixteen level increase to his base offense level; and (2) he is entitled to a relief due to

25
26
27
28

1

Defendant was previously deported after sustaining a felony drug trafficking conviction with
a sentence that exceeded thirteen months. Thus, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), sixteen levels
were added to his base offense level. Specifically, Defendant was deported on April 17, 2006, which
was subsequent to his November 10, 2004 conviction in Santa Clara County Superior Court, for a felony
charge of Possession/Purchase for Sale of a Narcotic Controlled Substance, to wit: heroin, in violation
of Cal. H & S § 11351, for which he received a three-year state prison sentence.
-2-

11cr465/12cv1091

1

post conviction rehabilitation.

2

DISCUSSION
Section 2255 provides, in relevant part:

3

7

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress
claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the
maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the
court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). If a defendant’s motion, file, and records “conclusively show that the movant

8

is entitled to no relief,” the Court summarily may dismiss the motion without sending it to the

9

United States Attorney for response. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The rules regarding Section 2255

4
5
6

10

proceedings similarly state that the Court summarily may order dismissal of a 2255 motion without

11

service upon the United States Attorney only “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any

12

attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief . .

13

.”. Rule 4(a), RULES-SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS (West 2009).2 Thus, when a defendant fails to

14

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or when the motion is incredible or patently

15

frivolous, the district court may summarily dismiss the motion. Cf. United States v. Burrows, 872

16

F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989); Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985).

17

A.

Defendant Waived His Right to Collateral Attack

18

1.

19

The Ninth Circuit regularly enforces knowing and voluntary waivers of appellate rights in

Legal Standard

20

criminal cases where the waivers are part of negotiated guilty pleas and do not violate public policy.

21

United States v. Anglin, 215 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 2000). “The sole test of a waiver’s validity is

22

whether it was made knowingly and voluntarily.” Id. at 1068 (citing United States v. Michlin, 34

23

F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1994)). If a waiver of appellate rights was made knowingly and voluntarily,

24

inquiry into the waiver’s validity must end. United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.

25
2

26
27
28

Similarly, a court deciding a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not required to hold an
evidentiary hearing if “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the
prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). “Mere conclusory statements by the petitioner
do not justify a hearing.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (1982). Instead, a defendant
must make “specific factual allegations which, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Id. As discussed
below, Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts showing a possible right to relief. Therefore, an
evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case.
-3-

11cr465/12cv1091

1

2000). A valid waiver bars a defendant from challenging his conviction and sentence. Id. The

2

Ninth Circuit, however, has indicated that exceptions to this rule may exist in limited circumstances,

3

including where a 2255 motion challenges a plea agreement’s validity by way of an ineffective

4

assistance of counsel claim. Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2005).

5

2.

6

Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and collateral attack in his

7

plea agreement. Defendant initialed each page of the plea agreement and indicated during both the

8

plea colloquy and the sentencing hearing that he understood he was waiving these rights.

9

Defendant does not challenge the knowing and voluntary nature of his waiver in his motion.

10

Analysis

In addition, the plea agreement’s language clearly embraces a waiver of any collateral attack

11

on Defendant’s sentence, including a 2255 motion. See United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815,

12

817 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (finding that defendant waived his right to appeal an incorrect

13

application of Sentencing Guidelines even though the plea agreement did not specifically mention

14

this right; to find otherwise “would render the waiver meaningless”). The record reflects that

15

Defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant

16

validly waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. Nguyen, 235 F.3d at 1182.

17

B.

Defendant’s Motion Is Without Merit

18

1.

Legal Standard

19

Even if Defendant did not validly waive his right to collaterally attack his sentence, his

20

ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails on the merits. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of

21

counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2)

22

counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668,

23

687 (1984). To establish prejudice, a Defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell

24

below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and that, but for counsel’s errors, there is a

25

reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694. There

26

is, however, a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of acceptable

27

professional assistance.” Id. at 689.

28

///
-4-

11cr465/12cv1091

1

2.

Analysis

2

Defendant alleges his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the sixteen level

3

increase to his base offense level due to his 2004 conviction for possessing heroin for sale.

4

Defendant contends that this prior felony conviction should not have been considered “aggravated,”

5

and therefore counsel should have objected to the increase on this basis. Defendant’s claim fails.

6

Title 8 of the United States Code, section 1101(a)(43) defines the term “aggravated felony” to mean

7

“illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21), including a drug

8

trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).” His prior conviction qualifies as an

9

aggravated felony. See Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[P]ossession of a

10

controlled substance with the intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated

11

felony.”). Thus, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue to the contrary.

12

Furthermore, according to the record, Defendant admitted in his plea agreement that he was

13

previously convicted of a felony that is a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of U.S.S.G. §

14

2L1.2(b)(1)(A), and that a sixteen level increase to his base offense level was appropriate based

15

upon this prior conviction for possessing heroin for sale. See Doc. No. 15. Defendant does not

16

challenge the validity of his plea agreement.3

17

Finally, Defendant appears to assert that he is entitled to a post conviction downward

18

departure for his post conviction conduct in rehabilitating himself while in prison. However, post-

19

sentencing rehabilitative efforts, even if exceptional, may not be considered by a court when

20

sentencing a defendant. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.19 (“Post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, even if

21

exceptional, undertaken by a defendant after imposition of a term of imprisonment for the instant

22

offense are not an appropriate basis for a downward departure when resentencing the defendant for

23

that offense.”). Rather, such efforts may be a basis for early termination of supervised release. Id.

24

The Court may not reduce Defendant’s previously imposed sentence based on his post-judgment

25

accomplishments, no matter how admirable those accomplishments might be.

26
3

27
28

In addition, the Court notes that counsel submitted a thorough sentencing memorandum, in
which he argued for a reasonable sentence in consideration of the factors set forth in Section 3553(a)
of Title 18. Counsel ultimately secured a 41-month sentence for his client, even though Defendant’s
exposure was considerably higher under the applicable guideline range of 63 to 78 months. See Doc.
No. 19.
-5-

11cr465/12cv1091

1
2

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s Motion to

3

Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 26]. Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the

4

denial of a constitutional right, and accordingly, the Court does not issue a certificate of

5

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: May 4, 2012

8
9

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-

11cr465/12cv1091