Vega v. USA
ORDER Denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. The Court denies the Motion in its entirety and denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 6/1/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MELISSA ANN VEGA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CASE NO. 17cv0590 JM
CRIM. No. 14cr3658 JM
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
Petitioner Melissa Ann Vega moves for a reduction in her custodial sentence and
15 the amount of restitution imposed as part of her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255
16 (“Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion brought
17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 and denies a certificate of appealability.
On December 2, 2015, Petitioner waived indictment and entered a guilty plea to
20 Conspiracy to File False, Fictitious, and Fraudulent Claims (18 U.S.C. § 286), Tax
21 Evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201), and Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A). The
22 signed plea agreement included Petitioner’s knowing and voluntary waiver of her rights
23 to appeal and collaterally attack her conviction, sentence, and restitution order. (Ct.
24 Dkt. 93, 94, 97). On March 18, 2016, this Court imposed a sentence of eight-four (84)
25 months in custody, whereby sixty (60) months were imposed on Counts 1 and 2 and
26 twenty-four (24) months was imposed on Count 3 (to run consecutive to Counts 1 and
27 2). The Court also imposed the jointly requested amount of restitution totaling
28 $7,176,836 to be paid to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).
On March 23, 2017, Petitioner filed the present Motion based upon documents
2 she received from the IRS. Petitioner interprets those documents to mean that the
3 agreed upon amount of restitution, $7,176,836, should be $340,000. The Government
4 explains that the documents received by Petitioner reflect a limited-scope audit
5 conducted by the IRS-Civil division. Of the 4,194 false returns filed by Petition, the
6 IRS-Civil division investigation focused only on 48 false returns. The $340,000
7 amount of losses reflected on those 48 false returns constitutes only about 1% of the
8 false returns prepared by Petitioner. (Keester Decl.).
10 I. Waiver
Petitioner waived her right to collaterally attack the sentence. Contract law
12 standards govern the validity of plea agreements. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d
13 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1990). A defendant validly waives her appellate rights if the
14 language of the waiver encompasses the right to appeal on the grounds raised and she
15 knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive those rights. United States v. Rahman, 642
16 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011). A waiver provision barring a defendant from seeking
17 collateral relief under a § 2255 motion is valid and enforceable. See United States v.
18 Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993); see United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912
19 F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasoning the public policy of finality supports
20 upholding waivers in plea agreements).
Here, Petitioner validly waived her right to collaterally attack the sentence when
22 she executed a plea agreement expressly waiving her right to appeal or to collaterally
23 attack the conviction and sentence unless the court imposed a custodial sentence
24 greater than the high end of the guideline range recommended by the government. The
25 waiver applies because, at sentencing, the court imposed a sentence less than the
26 guideline range recommended by the Government. The record reveals that Defendant’s
27 waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Accordingly, the court dismisses the Motion.
1 III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Petitioner’s claims also fail on the merits. To prevail on an ineffective assistance
3 of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance was
4 deficient; and (2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland
5 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A petitioner must demonstrate that
6 counsel’s representation fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and that,
7 but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
8 proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694.
Here, Petitioner misinterprets the Form 886-A provided to her by IRS-Civil
10 division. (Ct. Dkt. 131). This document does not support Petitioner’s claim that total
11 restitution is $340,000. The declaration of IRS Special Agent Keester reveals that the
12 Form 886-A represents the IRS-Civil division investigation that focused only on 48
13 false returns, and not all the 4,194 false returns prepared by Petitioner. As the Form
14 886-A document is consistent with the agreed upon amount of restitution ($7,176,836),
15 Petitioner fails to establish any prejudice or that counsel provided deficient
In sum, the court denies the Motion.
18 IV. Certificate of Appealability
For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing
20 of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denies any request for a
21 certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).
In sum, the court denies the Motion in its entirety and denies a certificate of
23 appealability. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 DATED: June 1, 2017
Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge
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?