Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01646/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01646-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

Civil Case No. 13-cv-01646-BTM

Crim. Case No. 11-cr-00226-BTM

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S § 2255

MOTION AND DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

FERNANDO MORALES-AGUILAR,

Defendant-Movant.

As ordered by the Court on July 16, 2013 (see ECF No. 55 ), Defendant 1

Fernando Morales-Aguilar (“Defendant”) filed a § 2255 form, requesting a reduction

of his sentence (ECF No. 59). However, in the § 2255 form, Defendant states only that

he seeks a sentence reduction so that he may be released, and does not offer any legal

cause as to why the Court should reduce his sentence.

Moreover, Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. “A

defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable if (1) the language of the

waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and (2) the waiver is

knowingly and voluntarily made.” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th

Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

All references are to the criminal docket, 11-cr-00226-BTM. 1

1 13cv01646 BTM; 11cr00226 BTM

Case 3:13-cv-01646-BTM Document 2 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 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

The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that a waiver barring collateral attack of a

conviction or sentence is enforceable when voluntarily made. See United States v.

Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Here, Defendant entered a Plea Agreement, filed on June 15, 2011, that expressly

waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence:

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, except a post-conviction collateral attack

based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless

the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the high end

of the guideline range recommended by the Government

pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing. If the

custodial sentence is greater than the high end of that range,

defendant may appeal, but the Government will be free to

support on appeal the sentence actually imposed.

(Plea Agreement ¶ 10, ECF No. 28.) Defendant has not alleged a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Additionally, the Court imposed a sentence of 57 months, below

the high end of the guideline range of 57 to 71 months recommended by the

Government. Thus, the language of the waiver encompasses the grounds raised in the

instant motion. Further, Defendant has not alleged, and there is nothing in the record

to indicate, that his waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made.

Defendant also sent a letter to the Court, filed nunc pro tunc to August 6, 2013, 

requesting a reduction of his sentence and claiming that his good time credit was

miscalculated (ECF No. 63). “Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence

must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the

manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to

§ 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir.

2000). Since this claim challenges the execution of his sentence, not the legality, it

should be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the district of his confinement, which is the

Central District of California.

//

//

2 13cv01646 BTM; 11cr00226 BTM

Case 3:13-cv-01646-BTM Document 2 Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 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

For the reasons above, Defendant’s § 2255 motion is DENIED. Insofar as

Defendant’s motion seeks the appointment of an attorney, that request is denied as

well. The Court further DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

3 13cv01646 BTM; 11cr00226 BTM

Case 3:13-cv-01646-BTM Document 2 Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 3