Pena-Urquidez v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER Dismissing with Prejudice Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/19/2013.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) ) ) Defendant-Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent. ) ) ) 11 RAUL PENA-URQUIDEZ, 12 13 14 15 16 Criminal No. 12-CR-2180-L Civil No. 13-CV-0202-L ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 17 On January 24, 2013, Petitioner Raul Pena-Urquidez (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion for 18 Reduction of Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner essentially requests that this 19 Court grant a downward departure of up to two points due to Petitioner’s immigration removal 20 status. The Court has reviewed the record in this case, which clearly establishes that on March 21 24, 2012, Petitioner waived both his right to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction and 22 sentence. (Plea Agreement ¶ XI.) Petitioner’s motion raises no challenge to the validity of that 23 waiver, therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any collateral challenge to his 24 conviction and sentence. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2005) 25 (recognizing that if sentencing agreement’s waiver of the right to file a federal habeas petition 26 was valid, district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case). 27 /// 28 1 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion For Reduction of Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 2255 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 DATED: March 19, 2013 6 M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge 7 8 9 10 COPIES TO: 11 PETITIONER U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?