Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00959/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00959-0/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 

WO SC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Manuel Dominguez-Barajas, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 13-0959-PHX-GMS (BSB) 

 CR 12-0696-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Movant Manuel Dominguez-Barajas, who is confined in the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Yazoo City, Mississippi, has filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Court 

will summarily dismiss the § 2255 Motion. 

I. Procedural History 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pleaded guilty to re-entry of a removed 

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(1). The plea agreement provided that 

Movant’s base offense level would be calculated as the sum of Offense Level 8 plus the 

sentencing guideline adjustment for the Movant’s most serious prior conviction as 

determined by the Court and that his offense level would be reduced under the Attorney 

General’s Early Disposition Program depending upon his criminal history. On July 2, 

Case 2:13-cv-00959-GMS--BSB Document 3 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

2012, the Court sentenced Movant to a 61-month term of imprisonment followed by three 

years on supervised release. 

 Movant alleges three grounds for relief. In Ground One, he asserts that counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal, to object to the 

presentence report, or to argue racial and ethnic motivation for downward departure and 

his cultural assimilation. In Ground Two, he asserts that he was eligible for a sentence 

reduction based on racial and ethnic motivation. In Ground Three, he asserts that he was 

eligible for cultural assimilation where he was brought to the United States as a child and 

has no family in Mexico. Movant has also attached “Defendant’s Motion Requesting 

Reduction of Sentence Based on ‘Racial and Ethnic Motivation’ Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§§ 5K2.0 and 5H1.10” in support of his grounds for relief. 

II. Summary Dismissal

 A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly 

appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 

the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 

Proceedings for the United States District Courts. When this standard is satisfied, neither 

a hearing nor a response from the government is required. See Marrow v. United States, 

772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 

1982). In this case, the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is 

warranted because Movant has waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. 

III. Waiver 

 Movant has waived challenges to his sentence. The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has found that there are “strict standards for waiver of constitutional rights.” 

United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2005). It is 

impermissible to presume waiver from a silent record, and the Court must indulge every 

reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. United 

States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004). In this action, Movant’s waiver 

was clear, express, and unequivocal. 

Case 2:13-cv-00959-GMS--BSB Document 3 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

 Plea agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally 

be enforced if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. 

Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory 

right to bring a § 2255 action challenging the length of the sentence. United States v. 

Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 

(9th Cir. 1992). The only claims that cannot be waived are claims that the waiver itself 

was involuntary or that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver involuntary. 

See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a plea 

agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas petition pursuant to § 2254 is 

unenforceable with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that challenges 

the voluntariness of the waiver); Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing doubt that a plea 

agreement could waive a claim that counsel erroneously induced a defendant to plead 

guilty or accept a particular plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 (expressly declining 

to hold that a waiver forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the 

waiver); see also Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1156 n.4 (declining to decide whether waiver of 

all statutory rights included claims implicating the voluntariness of the waiver). 

 “Collateral attacks based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are 

characterized as falling outside [the category of ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver] are waivable.” United States v. 

Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001). See also Williams v. United States, 

396 F.3d 1340, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) (joining the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and 

Tenth Circuits in holding that “a valid sentence-appeal waiver, entered into voluntarily 

and knowingly, pursuant to a plea agreement, precludes the defendant from attempting to 

attack, in a collateral proceeding, the sentence through a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during sentencing.”). 

 As part of Movant’s plea agreement, Movant made the following waiver: 

Providing the defendant’s sentence is consistent with this agreement, the 

defendant waives (1) any and all motions, defenses, probable cause 

Case 2:13-cv-00959-GMS--BSB Document 3 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

determinations, and objections that the defendant could assert to the 

indictment or information; (2) any right to file an appeal, any collateral 

attack, and any other writ or motion that challenges the conviction, an 

order of restitution or forfeiture, the entry of judgment against the 

defendant, or any aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including the 

manner in which the sentence is determined, including but not limited 

to any appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2241 and 2255. The defendant acknowledges that if the Court has 

sentenced the defendant according to the terms of this agreement, this 

waiver shall result in the dismissal of any appeal, collateral attack, or 

other motion the defendant might file challenging the conviction, order 

of restitution or forfeiture, or sentence in this case. 

(Doc. 22 at 4) (emphasis added). Movant indicated in the plea agreement that he had 

discussed the terms with his attorney, agreed to the terms and conditions, and entered into 

the plea voluntarily. (Id. at 6-7, 8-9.) 

 Movant’s assertions in the § 2255 Motion pertain to sentencing and to counsel’s 

alleged failure to file a notice of appeal, and not to the voluntariness of the waiver. 

Movant expressly waived issues regarding the imposition of sentence and expressly 

waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. The Court accepted the plea as voluntarily 

made. The post-judgment failure of Movant’s attorney to file an appeal does not affect 

the validity of his waiver of the right to file a § 2255. Consequently, the Court finds that 

Movant waived the issues raised in the Amended § 2255 Motion. Therefore, the Court 

will summarily dismiss the § 2255 Motion. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence (Doc. 27 in CR 12-0696-PHX-GMS) is denied and the civil action opened in 

connection with this Motion (CV 13-0959-PHX-GMS (BSB)) is dismissed with 

prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 (2) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

Case 2:13-cv-00959-GMS--BSB Document 3 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 7th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00959-GMS--BSB Document 3 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 5