Castro v. USA

Filing 3

ORDER Denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Because Petitioner's collateral attack is precluded by a valid waiver, Court denies Petitioner's motion for time reduction under 28 USC 2255. Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 6/11/2013. Criminal Case Number: 12cr544-IEG. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESUS GUZMAN-CASTRO,

CASE NO. 12-cv-2263 – IEG
Related Case: 12-cr-544 – IEG

Petitioner,

12
13

ORDER:

vs.

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR TIME
REDUCTION PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 2255

14
15
16

[Doc. No. 1 in 12-cv-2263]
[Doc. No. 26 in 12-cr-544]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

17

Respondent.

(2) DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

18
19
20
21
22

Petitioner Jesus Guzman-Castro, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
submitted a motion for time reduction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. No. 26
in 12-cr-544.] Having considered Petitioner’s arguments, and for the reasons set
forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

23
24
25

BACKGROUND
Petitioner was charged with, and ultimately pled guilty to, violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 (intentional importation of methamphetamine).1 [See Doc.

26
27
1

28

The Government’s response incorrectly states that Petitioner was charged,
and pled guilty to, 8 U.S.C. §1326 (removed alien found in the United States). [See
Doc. No. 28 at 2.]
-1-

12cr544-IEG; 12cv2263-IEG

1

No. 26.] With his Plea Agreement, Petitioner expressly “waive[d], to the full extent

2

of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence . .

3

. unless the Court impose[d] a custodial sentence above the greater of the high end of

4

the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this agreement at

5

the time of sentencing or statutory mandatory minimum term, if applicable.” [Doc.

6

No. 15 at 10.] On September 10, 2012, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 46 months

7

in federal custody (and three years of supervised release), the low end of the 46-57

8

month range recommended by the Government. [See Doc. Nos. 23, 24.]
With the present motion, Petitioner contends that, due to his alien status, he is

9
10

ineligible for (1) a one-year reduction of sentence through a drug program, (2) an

11

early release to a halfway house, and (3) a Unicor job, and that the availability of

12

these programs to United States citizens, but not to aliens such as Petitioner, violates

13

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause

14

of the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal Rights Act of 1964. [Doc. No. 26.]
DISCUSSION

15
16

Section 2255(a) authorizes the Court to “vacate, set aside or correct” a

17

sentence of a federal prisoner that “was imposed in violation of the Constitution or

18

laws of the United States.” Claims for relief under § 2255 must be based on some

19

constitutional error, jurisdictional defect, or an error resulting in a “complete

20

miscarriage of justice” or in a proceeding “inconsistent with the rudimentary

21

demands of fair procedure.” United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84

22

(1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the record clearly indicates that a

23

petitioner does not have a claim or that he has asserted “no more than conclusory

24

allegations, unsupported by facts and refuted by the record,” a district court may

25

deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Quan, 789

26

F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986).

27

I.

28

Waiver
It is clear that Petitioner waived any right to collaterally attack his sentence.
-2-

12cr544-IEG; 12cv2263-IEG

1

“‘A defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable if (1) the language of

2

the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and (2) the waiver

3

is knowingly and voluntarily made.’” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257,

4

1259 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). In this case, as part of his Plea Agreement,

5

Petitioner expressly waived “any right . . . to collaterally attack the conviction and

6

sentence,” unless “the Court impose[d] a custodial sentence above the greater of the

7

high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this

8

agreement at the time of sentencing.” [Doc. No. 15 at 10.] The Court imposed a

9

sentence of 46 months, the low end of the 46-57 month range recommended by the

10

Government. [See Doc. Nos. 23, 24.] Because the Court did not impose a sentence

11

above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government, waiver

12

applies. Nor is there any indication that Petitioner’s waiver was not knowingly and

13

voluntarily made. Accordingly, Petitioner’s valid waiver precludes collateral attack

14

on his sentence. See United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993);

15

see also United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1990)

16

(public policy supports plea agreements because, inter alia, of the finality that

17

results).
CONCLUSION

18
19

Because Petitioner’s collateral attack is precluded by a valid waiver, the Court

20

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for time reduction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court

21

also denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not “made a

22

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. §

23

2253(c)(2).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 11, 2013

________________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

26
27
28
-3-

12cr544-IEG; 12cv2263-IEG