Martinez-Ariza v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER Denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Court denies the Motion to reduce Petitioner's sentence. Clerk instructed to close the file. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/14/2013. Criminal Case Number: 12cr442-JM. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

Martinez-Ariza v. USA

Doc. 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO. 12cr0442 JM
CIVIL NO. 13cv1853 JM

Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. 2255

13
14

ISRAEL MARTINEZ ARIZA
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Israel Martinez Ariza (“Defendant”),
a non-United States citizen, pleaded guilty to one count in the indictment for
importation of 11.65 kilograms of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§952 and 960. On
July 26, 2013 the court sentenced Defendant to 51 months’ custody and three years of
supervised release. On or about August 8, 2013 Defendant filed a motion for a
reduction of the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”). Defendant contends that
his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process have been violated
because, as an alien, he is ineligible for a one-year sentence reduction through a drug
program and/or early release to a halfway house. For the reasons set forth below, the
court summarily dismisses the Motion.

26
27
28

DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Review
Claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be based on a constitutional error,
-1-

12cr0442/13cv1853

Dockets.Justia.com

1

a jurisdictional error, a defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or an unfair

2

procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84

3

(1979). Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[i]f it

4

plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior

5

proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the

6

motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” The court does not need to hold

7

an evidentiary hearing or obtain a response from the government. See 28 U.S.C. §

8

2255; United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986).

9

I. Waiver

10

Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. Contract law

11

standards govern the validity of plea agreements. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d

12

1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1990). A defendant validly waives his appellate rights if the

13

language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised and he

14

knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive those rights. United States v. Rahman, 642

15

F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011). A waiver provision barring a defendant from seeking

16

collateral relief under a § 2255 motion is valid and enforceable. See United States v.

17

Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993); see United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912

18

F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasoning the public policy of finality supports

19

upholding waivers in plea agreements). Defendant validly waived his right to

20

collaterally attack his sentence when he executed a plea agreement expressly waiving

21

his right to appeal or to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence unless the court

22

imposed a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guidelines range

23

recommended by the government. The waiver applies because, at sentencing, the court

24

imposed a sentence within the recommended guideline range. The record reveals that

25

Defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, the court dismisses the

26

Motion.

27

II. Procedural Bar

28

Even if Defendant did not waive the right to collaterally attack his sentence, he
-2-

12cr0442/13cv1853

1

has procedurally defaulted on his claim. A defendant procedurally defaults on claims

2

that he could have, but did not raise on appeal. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S.

3

614, 621-22 (1998). Defendant did not raise these claims on direct appeal. He does not

4

allege that he is innocent or that cause and prejudice existed to excuse his procedural

5

default. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1996). Accordingly, the court

6

dismisses the Motion.

7

II. The Merits

8

Defendant’s claim also fails on the merits. An Equal Protection claim arises

9

when a statute, on its face or when enforced, results in the differential treatment of

10

similarly situated persons due to discriminatory government intent. United States v.

11

Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1995); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216

12

(1982). The court must analyze the distinction under the appropriate level of scrutiny.

13

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265

14

(1977). Unless a suspect classification is present, the unequal treatment must only be

15

rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473

16

U.S. 432, 440 (1985). “The fact that an Act of Congress treats aliens differently from

17

citizens does not itself imply that such treatment is invidious.” Matthews v. Diaz, 426

18

U.S. 67, 80 (1976). Federal classifications based on alienage receive rational basis

19

review because Congressional power to serve national interests in immigration and

20

foreign relations justify selective legislation not permitted to the states. Id. at 81; see

21

Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365, 377 (1971).

22

The exclusion of non-citizen inmates from participating in an early release drug

23

program survives rational basis scrutiny. See McLean v. Crabtree 173 F.3d 1176, 1186

24

(9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) did not

25

violate the equal protection rights of non-citizen plaintiffs with Immigration and

26

Naturalization Service detainers by denying them a sentence reduction. The court

27

reasoned that the government distinction between prisoners with detainers and

28

prisoners without detainers did not create a suspect classification. Id. at 1186.
-3-

12cr0442/13cv1853

1

Excluding prisoners with detainers from community-based treatment programs and

2

sentence reduction eligibility rationally served the government’s legitimate interest in

3

eliminating the risk of a prisoner’s escape during the community-based treatment

4

phase. Id. The government did not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights by

5

denying him the opportunity to participate in an early-release drug program based on

6

his non-citizen status because of a legitimate interest in eliminating a risk of flight.

7

In the context of early-release drug program eligibility benefits, deportable aliens

8

are not similarly situated to United States citizens because citizen inmates must re-enter

9

domestic society while deportable inmates are denied that privilege. Patterson-Romo

10

v. United States, No. 10-CR-3119, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79319, at *3 (denying

11

petitioner’s motion for a reduction of the sentence); United States v. Avendano, No.

12

12-CV-1495, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89959, at *6 (denying an identical petition);

13

Ortiz-Castillo v. United States, No. 11-CR-2511, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39423, at *5

14

(denying an identical petition); Rios-Ibarra v. United States, No. 09-CV-205-JD, 2012

15

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10977, at *5 (denying an identical petition); United States v.

16

Brionez-Villela, No. 8:12CR73, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85164, at *5 (denying a similar

17

petition). Defendant is not similarly situated to citizen prisoners who are eligible for

18

early release drug program benefits because he will not re-enter domestic society in the

19

United States following incarceration.

20

A challenge to the BOP policy of excluding non-citizens from a sentence

21

reduction option does not fall within the scope of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United

22

States v. Armando Rodriguez-Palomares, No. 05-CR-1965-JM 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

23

85572, at *6 (denying a motion for a reduction of the sentence because a downward

24

departure based on deportable alien status is unavailable under § 2255). The

25

determination of a prisoner’s eligibility for participation in an early release drug

26

program rests entirely within BOP discretion and a prisoner has no constitutionally

27

protected liberty interest in early release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.

28

Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 243 (2001); Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 670 (9th Cir.
-4-

12cr0442/13cv1853

1

1966). Defendant does not have a protected liberty interest in early release. He may not

2

challenge the terms of an early release drug program eligibility policy under a 28

3

U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

4
5

In sum, the court denies the Motion to reduce Defendant’s sentence. The Clerk
of Court is instructed to close the file.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: August 14, 2013

9

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge

10
11
cc:

All parties

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

12cr0442/13cv1853