Gonzalez-Leon v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER Denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/4/2013. (Copy of Order, docketed in 12cr2700, was already mailed to Defendant-Petitioner.)(mdc)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO. 12CR2700WQH
CASE NO. 13CV239WQH
Plaintiff,

12
vs.
13

ORDER

JORGE GONZALEZ-LEON,

14

Defendant.

15
16

HAYES, Judge:

17

The matter before the Court is the Motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

18

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 32). Defendant moves the court to grant a

19

downward departure on the grounds that he cannot be housed in a minimum security facility

20

or a Community Correctional Center because of his deportation status. The Court finds that

21

the issues raised in the petition are appropriate for summary disposition.

22

APPLICABLE LAW

23

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act

24

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

25

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without

26

jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

27

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which

28

imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” A district court must
-1-

12cr2700WQH

1

summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached

2

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

3

Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District courts.

4

When this standard is satisfied, neither a hearing nor a response from the government is

5

required. See Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985).
RULING OF THE COURT

6
7

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to

8

bring a § 2255 motion. In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the plea agreement,

9

the Defendant waived “to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack

10

the conviction and sentence, except a post-conviction collateral attack based on a claim of

11

ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the high

12

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

13

time of sentencing.” (ECF No. 17 at 10). This waiver is clear, express and unequivocal. Plea

14

agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally be enforced if the

15

agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo, 298 F.3d 1149,

16

1153 (9th Cir. 2005).

17

At the time of sentencing, the Government recommended an adjusted offense level of

18

19 and a resulting guideline range of 63-78 months. (ECF No. 23). The Government

19

recommended a sentence of 63 months. (ECF No. 23). The Court imposed a sentence of 48

20

months. (ECF No. 31 at 2). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant

21

waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence imposed.

22

Finally, the Defendant presents no grounds for relief under Section 2255. The

23

Sentencing Reform Act gives the Bureau of Prisons the responsibility to “designate the place

24

of the prisoner’s imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See United States v. Cubillos, 91 F.3d

25

1342, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected the

26

assertion that an alien’s equal protection rights are violated when he cannot be housed in a

27

minimum security facility or a community correction center based upon his deportation status.

28

See McClean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999).
-2-

12cr2700WQH

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

2

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 32) filed by the Defendant is denied.

3

DATED: February 4, 2013

4
5

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

12cr2700WQH