Suniga-Sanchez v. USA

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) (Criminal Number 06-083) filed by Ramiro Suniga-Sanchez. Judgment shall enter summarily dismissing the petition, because it is plain from the record that Petitioner is entitled to no relief. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 1/8/10.(mrj) Modified on 1/11/2010 to correct typo error (dv).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO R A M IR O SUŃIGA-SÁNCHEZ, P e titio n e r, v. U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, R e s p o n d e n t.

C i v il No. 09-1662 (JAF) (Crim. No. 06-083)

ORDER O n July 14, 2009, Petitioner, Ramiro Súńiga-Sánchez, petitioned this court for postc o n v ic tio n relief from a federal judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that he re c e iv e d ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.1 (Docket N o . 1.) Respondent, the United States of America, opposed on August 7, 2009. (Docket No. 3.) P e titio n e r alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in three respects: (1) Petitioner did n o t benefit from the terms of his plea agreement; (2) there is newly-discovered evidence s u g g e s tin g that the prosecution failed to make mandatory disclosures at trial; and (3) Petitioner's
A federal district court has jurisdiction to entertain a § 2255 motion when the petitioner is in custody under the sentence of a federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The petitioner may challenge his sentence on the basis that: (1) the court imposed the sentence in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. § 2255(a). Should a court find any of these errors, it "shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate." § 2255(b). "A § 2255 motion which is facially inadequate may be summarily denied, i.e., motions stating nonconstitutional grounds, contentions which are `wholly incredible,' or cognizable claims stating conclusions without specific and detailed supporting facts . . . . Facially adequate § 2255 claims may be summarily denied when the record conclusively contradicts them." United States v. Butt, 731 F.2d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1984) (internal citations omitted).
1

Civil No. 09-1662 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

-2 -

c o u n se l had failed to object to the imposition of a sentence based upon the full amount of n a rc o tic s stated in the indictment.2 (Docket No. 1.) Petitioner's claims are patently meritless. F irst, under his plea agreement, Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to the first three of four c o u n ts in the indictment and accepted responsibility for an amount of three-and-one-half, but n o more than five, kilograms of cocaine. (Crim. No. 06-083, Docket No. 343.) The agreement re c o m m e n d e d a sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months' incarceration. (Id.) On J a n u a ry 9, 2007, we rendered judgment against Petitioner for the first three of four counts in the ind ictm en t, dismissing the final charge against Petitioner. (Crim. No. 06-083, Docket No. 465.) W e sentenced Petitioner to seventy-eight months in federal detention in accordance with his resp o n sib ility for at least three-and-one-half, but less than five, kilograms of cocaine. (Id.) T h e s e terms are well within the range of outcomes contemplated in his plea agreement. S e c o n d , Petitioner alleges no details in support of his averment of newly-discovered e v i d e n c e . (Docket No. 1.) We cannot assess the merits of this claim because Petitioner raises it in a perfunctory manner. See United States v. Butt, 731 F.2d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1984). T h ird , we did not convict and sentence Petitioner for the full amount alleged in the o rig in a l indictment. The indictment accused Petitioner of participation in a conspiracy to d i s t r i b u t e five or more kilograms of cocaine. (Crim. No. 06-083, Docket No. 16.) As stated ab o v e, we explicitly sentenced Petitioner for three offenses involving at least three-and-oneh alf, but less than five, kilograms of cocaine. (Crim. No. 06-083, Docket No. 465.)

Because Plaintiff is pro se, we construe his pleadings more favorably than we would pleadings drafted by an attorney. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, Plaintiff's pro-se status does not insulate him from the strictures of procedural and substantive law. See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).
2

Civil No. 09-1662 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-3 -

A c c o rd in g ly, we must summarily deny Petitioner's petition because it is facially inadequate. S e e Butt, 731 F.2d at 77. In view of the foregoing, we hereby DENY Petitioner's § 2255 motion (Docket No. 1). P u rs u a n t to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, we summarily DISMISS this p e titio n , because it is plain from the record that Petitioner is entitled to no relief. I T IS SO ORDERED. S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8 th day of January, 2010. s /J o s é Antonio Fusté J O S E ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge