Zaragoza-Lopez v. USA
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 05/16/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RODOLFO ZARAGOZA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR
CORRECT SENTENCE
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Case No. 2:12-CV-470 TS
Respondent.
Criminal Case No. 2:11-CR-125 TS
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the
Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Rodolfo Zaragoza-Lopez was named in a two-count Indictment on February
16, 2011, charging him with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and aiding
and abetting. Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count I, possession with intent to distribute, on June
1
14, 2011. As will be discussed below, in his plea agreement, Petitioner waived his right to bring
certain collateral challenges, including his right to bring a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Prior to sentencing, Petitioner’s counsel challenged a portion of the Presentence Report
that attributed 374.8 grams of methamphetamine found in an apartment to Petitioner and added
that amount to determine the total methamphetamine for which Petitioner was responsible. At
sentencing, the Court overruled Petitioner’s objection and found that the 374.8 grams of
methamphetamine were properly attributable to Petitioner. The Court based this decision on the
fact that Petitioner had access to the apartment where the 374.8 grams of methamphetamine were
found and that the drugs and packaging materials found in Petitioner’s possession were similar to
those found in the apartment. Based on this finding, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 135
months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
Judgment was entered on September 29, 2011. Petitioner, through counsel, filed an
appeal on October 10, 2011. Petitioner then sought to dismiss his appeal, which request was
granted on April 24, 2012.
Petitioner timely filed this § 2255 Motion on May 11, 2012. In his § 2255 Motion,
Petitioner raises a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleges that his
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate fingerprints and conduct a lab analysis of the
methamphetamine. Petitioner contends that had his counsel done so, the Court would not have
attributed the additional 374.8 grams of methamphetamine to him and he would have received a
lesser sentence.
2
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s Statement in Advance of Plea of Guilty contains the following provision:
I . . . knowingly, voluntarily, and expressly waive my right to challenge my
sentence, and the manner in which the sentence is determined, in any collateral
review motion, writ or other procedure, including but not limited to a motion
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1
This provision was explained to Petitioner during his change of plea hearing and he indicated
that he understood.2
The Tenth Circuit has held that “a waiver of collateral attack rights brought under § 2255
is generally enforceable where the waiver is expressly stated in the plea agreement and where
both the plea and the waiver were knowingly and voluntarily made.”3 In determining the
enforceability of such waivers, the Court is to consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls
within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a
miscarriage of justice.”4
1
Criminal Case No. 2:11-CR-125 TS, Docket No. 41, ¶ 12(A)(2)(b).
2
Criminal Case No. 2:11-CR-125 TS, Docket No. 78, at 11.
3
United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1183 (10th Cir. 2001).
4
United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v.
Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc)).
3
1.
Scope of the Waiver
As set forth above, Petitioner brings a single claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Petitioner alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain fingerprints and conduct
analysis of the methamphetamine found at the apartment. This claim clearly falls within the
scope of the broad waiver set forth above, which precludes Petitioner from filing “any collateral
review motion” including a § 2255 motion.
The Tenth Circuit has held “that a plea agreement waiver of postconviction rights does
not waive the right to bring a § 2255 petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims
challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver.”5 Petitioner does not make any ineffective
assistance claims relating to the validity of his plea or his collateral appeal waiver. Rather,
Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim focuses on counsel’s actions at the time of sentencing.
Therefore, the Court finds Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claims fall within the scope of the
waiver and the exception set out in Cockerham is not applicable.
2.
Knowing and Voluntary
The Court will “only enforce appeal waivers that defendants enter into knowingly and
voluntarily.”6 In determining whether an appeal waiver is knowing and voluntary, the Court
looks to two factors: (1) “whether the language of the plea agreement states that the defendant
5
Cockerham, 237 F.3d at 1187.
6
Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1328 (citing United States v. Elliot, 264 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir.
2001)).
4
entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily,”7 and (2) whether there was “an adequate
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy.”8
In this case, the language of the Statement in Advance of Plea of Guilty indicates that
Petitioner entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Further, the Court has reviewed
the transcript of the change of plea hearing and finds that it complies with the requirements of
Rule 11. Therefore, the Court finds that the collateral appeal waiver was entered into knowingly
and voluntarily.
3.
Miscarriage of Justice
The third prong of the appellate waiver enforcement analysis “requires the court to
determine whether enforcing the waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice.”9
To prove that enforcement of an appellate waiver would result in a miscarriage of
justice, a defendant must establish at least one of four circumstances: (1) reliance
by the court upon an impermissible factor such as race in imposition of the
sentence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation
of the waiver; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver
is otherwise unlawful and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.10
Petitioner bears the burden of establishing a miscarriage of justice.11 In this case,
Petitioner has presented no evidence that any of the circumstances set forth above exist.
7
Id. at 1325 (citing Elliot, 264 F.3d at 1174 n.1) (“Indeed, the plea agreement, which he
signed, stated that [the defendant] ‘knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] the right’ to appeal.”).
8
Id. (internal citations omitted).
9
Id. at 1327 (internal citations omitted).
10
Porter, 405 F.3d at 1143 (citing Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327).
11
United States v. Anderson, 374 F.3d 955, 959 (10th Cir. 2004).
5
Therefore, the Court finds that enforcement of the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of
justice.
Based on the above, the Court finds Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim falls within
the scope of the collateral appeal waiver, that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that
enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Court will enforce
Petitioner’s waiver and deny this Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the above, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Original § 2255 Motion (Docket No. 1 in Case No. 2:12CV-470 TS) is DENIED for the reasons set forth above. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, an
evidentiary hearing is not required.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Case No. 2:12-CV-470 TS forthwith.
DATED May 16, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
6
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?