Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01732/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01732-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 11cr1515

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cr1515 - IEG

related to 11cv1732 - IEG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SENTENCE REDUCTION

[Doc. No. 39]

vs.

ALVAREZ SAENZ MARCO ANTONIO,

Defendant 

Defendant Alvarez Saenz Marco Antonio moves the Court for an order reducing his time in

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the Court finds

the motion “conclusively show[s] that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . .” 28 U.S.C. §

2255(b). Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion without further briefing.

BACKGROUND

In April 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to bringing in illegal aliens and aiding and abetting

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) and (v)(II). [Doc. No. 25.] This Court sentenced him to

8 months imprisonment, along with two years supervised release. [Doc. No. 37.] Defendant

timely filed the present motion.

In his motion, Defendant seeks a sentence reduction because he cannot be housed in a

minimum security facility or Community Correctional Center due to his deported alien status. 

Defendant argues the different treatment of aliens vis-a-vis United States citizens violates due

process and equal protection.

///

Case 3:11-cv-01732-IEG Document 2 Filed 08/11/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 11cr1515

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may move the court “to vacate, set aside or

correct the sentence” on the grounds that the sentence “was imposed in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

Defendant’s claim for relief fails for two reasons. First, Defendant explicitly waived his

right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. The plea agreement filed on April 28, 2011,

provides:

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in this plea agreement, defendant

waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the

conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the court imposes a

custodial sentence greater than the higher of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this plea agreement at the time of sentencing or statutory

mandatory minimum term, if applicable. If the custodial sentence is greater than the

high end of that range, the defendant may appeal, but the Government will be free to

support on appeal the sentence actually imposed. If defendant believes the

Government’s recommendation is not in accord with this agreement, defendant will

object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the objection will be deemed waived.

[Doc. No. 25.] Such a waiver is valid so long as it was “knowingly and voluntarily made” and

“encompasses the defendant’s right to appeal on the grounds claimed on appeal.” United States v.

Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Nothing in the present motion 

indicates Defendant’s waiver was invalid. Consequently, the waiver prevents Defendant from

collaterally attacking his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Second, even if Defendant did not waive his right to collaterally attack his sentence, his

claim lacks merit. The Ninth Circuit has found the Bureau of Prison’s rules, barring aliens from

benefitting from programs of the type cited by Defendant, do not violate equal protection or

implicate due process. McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999). Defendant

would not be entitled to relief on the merits of his claim even in the absence of a waiver.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-01732-IEG Document 2 Filed 08/11/11 Page 2 of 2