Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01416/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01416-0/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 

FI LED
 I JUN 29 201;l

CLERK, D,S. 

~----,- D,S TF.ICT ..--~ QOURT 

SOU DiSTRICT OF C.\UFOAHIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

) 

ARMANDO GUERREO-AL V ARADO, ) 

) Civ. No. 14-1416GT 

Petitioner, ) Cr. No. 13-1667GT 

) 

v. 	 ) ORDER 

) 

mUTED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

--------------------------------------) 

On June 30, 2014, Petitioner, Armando Guerreo-Alvarado ("Mr. Guerreo"), filed a Motion 

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Motion"). Mr. Guerreo 

states that he has discovered a new law which would allow him to apply for U.S. citizenship. The 

Court has fully considered this matter, including a review ofthe case file, the briefs submitted, the 

authorities cited therein and the arguments presented. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Guerreo's 

Motion is DENIED. 

First, Mr. Guerreo pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of 

Attempted Reentry After Deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). In the written 

plea agreement, Mr. Guerreo explicitly waived his right to appeal and/or collaterally attack his 

conviction or sentence. The Ninth Circuit has long acknowledged that the terms of a plea 

Case 3:14-cv-01416-GT Document 3 Filed 06/29/15 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 

agreement are enforceable. See, United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840,843 (9th Cir. 1996), 

cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1282 (1997). Since Mr. Guerreo expressly waived his statutory right to 

appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence in his plea agreement, Mr. Guerreo is now 

precluded from challenging that sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, United States v. 

Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a knowing and voluntary waiver ofa 

statutory right is enforceable). 

Second, the issue ofwhether or not Mr. Guerreo had derivative citizenship through his father 

was already investigated during the course ofthe proceedings. In fact, on December 18, 2013, Mr. 

Guerreo filed a Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea based on a possible claim of derivative 

citizenship. However, on February 26, 2014, his Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea was 

withdrawn because defense counsel determined he was not eligible for derivative citizenship. 

Additionally, there is no evidence in the record or in Mr. Guerro's brief that shows he may have 

a claim to derivative citizenship. Hence, even ifMr. Guerreo was not precluded from collaterally 

attacking his conviction and sentence, his claim would still be denied. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Guerreo's Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

date 	

)A~2-t!' L!J fiJ 

GORDON 

~/~;k THOMPSON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

cc: All parties with or without counsel 

2 

Case 3:14-cv-01416-GT Document 3 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2