Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01418/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GEORGE EUGENE PATUNAS,

 Petitioner/Defendant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent/Plaintiff.

Case Number CV 05-01418 JF

 CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER1 DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255

Petitioner/Defendant George Eugene Patunas (“Petitioner”) moves to vacate, set aside or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court has read the moving and

responding papers, and has considered the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the

motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2001, Petitioner was indicted for two counts relating to cocaine trafficking

in the so-called “Andes Outback Case.” On November 20, 2003, Petitioner entered into a plea

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 9
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

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California

(“Government”). Under the agreement, Petitioner waived his right to a grand jury indictment and

pled guilty to a superceding information charging him with interstate or foreign travel in aid of

unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). The agreement stated that Petitioner had

deposited “the equivalent of approximately $1,100,000 United States dollars” into bank accounts

in Sydney, Australia. It further stated that Petitioner’s sentence would be calculated as follows:

a. Base Offense Level, U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.2(a)(2), 28 

2S1.1(a)(2), 2S1.1.(b)(1), and 2S1.1(b)(2)(F)

(Versions in effect during 1997-1999)

b. Specific offense characteristics: None

c. Amount of loss/drugs: $1,100,000

d. Increase/decrease for role in the offense: 0

e. Acceptance of responsibility: -3

(If I meet the requirements of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1)

f. Adjusted offense level 25

Plea Agreement ¶ 7.

The plea agreement, which was entered into pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), called for an agreed sentence of sixty months of imprisonment, a term of

supervised release, a fine and a $100 special assessment. In the agreement, Petitioner waived his

right to appeal and his right to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except for relief based on

ineffective assistance of counsel. Based on the plea agreement, this Court sentenced Petitioner

on March 16, 2004 to sixty months imprisonment, two years’ supervised release and a $100

special assessment. The Court dismissed counts 1 and 2 of the original indictment and all counts

other than the count to which Petitioner pled.

On March 25, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner mailed to the Court a

motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The motion was filed on April 7, 2005. On

May 11, 2005, the Government filed its Reply. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner filed an amended

motion which included numerous allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel (discussed

below). On July 22, 2005, the Government filed a Second Reply in response to Petitioner’s June

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 9
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

3

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

15 filing. In two letters dated August 23, 2005 and October 23, 2005, Petitioner indicated that he

had not received the Government’s Second Reply. Petitioner was sent a copy of the Second

Reply on November 4, 2005, at which time he was advised that the motion was under submission

and that he would be advised by mail when a decision was issued. Plaintiff has filed nothing

further in support of the instant motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A prisoner in federal custody may move the sentencing court to vacate, set aside or

correct his sentence “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose

such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is

otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Under § 2255, “a district court must grant a hearing to determine the validity of a petition

brought under that section ‘[u]nless the motions and the files and records of the case conclusively

show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.’” United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1456

(9th Cir. 1994) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). In deciding whether the movant is entitled to an

evidentiary hearing, the district court should determine if, assuming the truth of the movant’s

claims, he could prevail. Id.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed pursuant to the two-prong test

established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). First, the

petitioner must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that

defense counsel made errors so serious that representation fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. The relevant inquiry is not what defense counsel

could have done, but rather whether the choices made by defense counsel were reasonable. 

Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 1998). “Review of counsel’s performance is

highly deferential and there is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide

range of reasonable representation.” Henley v. Crist, 67 F.3d 181, 185 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation

omitted). “Tactical decisions that are not objectively unreasonable do not constitute ineffective

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 9
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

4

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

assistance of counsel.” Id.

Second, the petitioner must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. Merely showing that the defense was impaired is insufficient. 

Id. at 693. The petitioner must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. A

“reasonable probability” is defined as “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the

outcome.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

 Petitioner has waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence on any ground

other than ineffective assistance of counsel. His plea agreement states: “I agree not to file any

collateral attack on my conviction or sentence, including a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, at

any time in the future after I am sentenced, except for a claim that my constitutional right to the

effective assistance of counsel was violated.” Plea Agreement ¶ 5. Accordingly, only

Petitioner’s claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel are properly before this Court.

Petitioner claims that his counsel (1) was not diligent in preparing his case for trial, (2)

failed to perform any discovery, (3) failed to attempt to exclude any of the Government’s

witnesses against him, (4) failed to take depositions or interview the Government’s witnesses, (5)

failed to negotiate a just and reasonable plea agreement accurately reflecting his role in the

offense, (6) negotiated a plea agreement that over-stated the amount of money Petitioner had

deposited, resulting in a five-level enhancement, (7) allowed and contributed to a sentence that

was excessive and unfair in light of the sentences in related cases identified in Petitioner’s presentence report, (8) failed to offer amendments to or object to the content of the pre-sentence

report, (9) failed to call witnesses on Petitioner’s behalf and (10) failed to file a timely appeal to

preserve meritorious issues.

A. Lack of Diligence in Preparing for Trial

Petitioner first claim is that counsel was not diligent in preparing Petitioner’s case for

trial. However, Petitioner makes no specific factual allegations with respect to deficiencies in

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 4 of 9
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

5

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

counsel’s preparations. As a result, this claim fails both prongs of the Strickland test. Presented

only with a vague allegation that counsel was not diligent, the Court has no basis for concluding

that counsel’s performance, which is presumed to be reasonable, actually fell outside of the wide

range of reasonable representation. In the absence of specific allegations of neglect by counsel

that prejudiced the outcome of his case, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable probability

that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s alleged lack of diligence.

B. Lack of Discovery

Petitioner next alleges that counsel failed to perform any discovery. However, he makes

no allegations as to the existence of evidence that might have been helpful to his case. Petitioner

makes no showing that counsel’s conduct was unreasonable under professional standards, nor

does he explain how counsel’s alleged omission prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings. 

Thus, this aspect of Petitioner’s claim also fails under both prongs of Strickland.

C. Failure to Depose, Interview or Exclude Government Witnesses

Petitioner’s third and fourth claims, alleging that counsel failed to exclude, depose or

interview any of the Government’s witnesses satisfy neither prong of Strickland. First, Petitioner

makes no allegations identifying particular witnesses that could have been deposed, interviewed,

or excluded; nor does he explain whether or how counsel’s conduct was unreasonable under

prevailing professional standards. Second, Petitioner makes no claims as to how counsel’s

decision not to depose, interview or attempt to exclude the Government’s witnesses prejudiced

the outcome of the proceedings—for example, the contents of the plea agreement or Petitioner’s

decision to enter into the plea agreement rather than stand trial on the original, more serious

charges.

D. The Plea Agreement

In his fifth claim, Petitioner alleges that counsel “failed to negotiate a just and reasonable

plea agreement” with a lower offense level and lighter sentence that reflected Petitioner’s actual

role. Although Petitioner no doubt would have preferred a lighter sentence, there is no indication

either in the record or in the moving papers that a more favorable plea agreement would have

been possible, nor is there any indication that the agreement overstates Petitioner’s criminal role. 

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 5 of 9
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

 The relevant portion of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 read as follows:

§ 2S1.1. Laundering of Monetary Instruments

(a) Base Offense Level:

(1) 23, if convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), or (a)(3)(A);

(2) 20, otherwise.

(b) Specific Offense Characteristics

(1) If the defendant knew or believed that the funds were the proceeds of an unlawful

activity involving the manufacture, importation, or distribution of narcotics or other

controlled substances, increase by 3 levels.

(2) If the value of the funds exceeded $100,000, increase the offense level as follows:

 Value (Apply the Greatest) Increase in Level 

(A) $100,000 or less no increase 

(B) More than $100,000 add 1 

(C) More than $200,000 add 2 

6

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

At the time he entered into the plea agreement, Petitioner faced charges related to cocaine

trafficking that carried a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty and might have resulted in

imprisonment for life. Petitioner has provided the Court with no basis for concluding, under

these circumstances, that the plea agreement was either unjust or unreasonable under prevailing

professional standards. Nor has Petitioner shown prejudice in the outcome. Notably, Petitioner

claims that “but for the said ineffective assistance, that the original draft [of the plea agreement]

would have been the final copy.” Amended Petition ¶ 10. However, the draft copy of the

agreement that Petitioner has provided (accompanying his original petition), includes the same

sentence as that in the final agreement. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 ¶ 8; Plea Agreement ¶ 8.

E. Amount of Loss

Petitioner’s sixth claim is that counsel was ineffective in negotiating to a plea agreement

that specified the amount of loss at $1,100,000, which Petitioner claims resulted in a five-level

enhancement to the offense level. The Government contends, however, that the calculation “did

not include any specific offense characteristics.” A close look at the plea agreement reveals that

Petitioner is correct on this factual point. The “Base Offense Level” is based on several sections

of the guidelines, including § 2S1.1.(b)(2)(F), under the heading “Specific Offense

Characteristics,” which specifies a five-level enhancement where the amount of loss exceeds one

million dollars.2 

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 6 of 9
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

(D) More than $350,000 add 3 

(E) More than $600,000 add 4 

(F) More than $1,000,000 add 5 

(G) More than $2,000,000 add 6 

(H) More than $3,500,000 add 7 

(I) More than $6,000,000 add 8 

(J) More than $10,000,000 add 9 

(K) More than $20,000,000 add 10 

(L) More than $35,000,000 add 11 

(M) More than $60,000,000 add 12 

(N) More than $100,000,000 add 13 

7

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

Nonetheless, Petitioner fails to show how the admitted amount of loss and the resulting

enhancement demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. While Petitioner

now claims that the amount of loss with which he was involved was less than $1,000,000, he

admitted during the plea colloquy that the Government’s statement that he had deposited

$1,100,000 was true and correct. Petitioner provides no basis for this Court to conclude that

counsel’s stipulation to the higher amount, to which Petitioner voiced no objection, was outside

the range of reasonable representation. In addition, Petitioner fails to show prejudice to the

outcome. The draft of the agreement that Petitioner claims would have been finalized but for the

alleged ineffectiveness includes a higher adjusted offense level (28) than that in the final

agreement (25).

F. Pre-Sentence Report

Petitioner’s seventh and eighth claims, asserting that his sentence was unfair and

excessive in light of the related cases listed in his Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), and that counsel

was ineffective for failing to object to or offer amendments to the report, fail to provide a basis

for relief. While the PSR shows that three defendants in related cases who pled guilty to a

different charge received lighter sentences, this fact alone provides no basis upon which the

Court could conclude that Petitioner’s sentence was either unfair or excessive. Petitioner makes

no specific claims regarding material in the report to which counsel should have objected, nor

does he explain why counsel’s failure to do so fell below an objective standard of reasonable

representation. Further, Petitioner makes no attempt to show a reasonable probability that

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

objections or amendments to the PSR would have been accepted by the Court or would have

altered the outcome of his case.

G. Failure to Call Witnesses on Petitioner’s Behalf

Petitioner’s ninth claim is that counsel was ineffective in failing to call witnesses on

Petitioner’s behalf at the sentencing hearing. However, because Petitioner’s sentence was the

result of a plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), there was no role for witnesses to play at

the hearing unless the Court was inclined to reject the plea agreement, and any departure from the

agreed upon sentence without the consent of the parties would have invalidated the agreement.

H. Failure to Appeal

Finally, Petitioner asserts that counsel failed to file a timely appeal to Petitioner’s

sentence. However, Petitioner expressly waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that George Eugene

Patunas’ motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence is DENIED.

DATED: July 17, 2006

_______________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Case No. CV 05-01418 JF/CR 01-20061-02 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Richard B. Mazer

Law Office of Richard Mazer

99 Divisadero St

San Francisco, CA 94117

richardbmazer@yahoo.com 

George Eugene Patunas

24102-050

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 1000 - Camp

Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640

John N. Glang

U.S. Attorney’s Office

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900

San Jose, CA 95113-2009

John.Glang@usdoj.gov

Case 5:05-cv-01418-JF Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 9 of 9