Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00739/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00739-0/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,

Respondent,

CASE NO. 15cr1422 JM

CASE NO. 17cv0739

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2255

v.

MARCO CLAROS-GUZMAN,

Petitioner.

Petitioner Marco Claros-Guzman moves to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (the “Motion”). The Government opposes the

Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters presented

appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the

court denies the Motion. 

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the Fast Track Plea Agreement, on June 11, 2015, Petitioner pleaded

guilty to being a Removed Alien Found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§1326(a) and (b). In addition to setting forth the factual basis for the plea, the Plea

Agreement specifically acknowledged a March 2, 2012 felony conviction for Deported

Alien Found in the United States. The Plea Agreement also provided for a waiver of

appeal and collateral attack. Petitioner was sentenced at the middle of the Guideline

Range recommended by the Government.

- 1 - 15cr1422/17cv0739

Case 3:17-cv-00739-JM Document 2 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

On November 5, 2015, Petitioner was sentenced to a custodial term of nine

months, followed by three years of supervised relief. (Ct6. Dkt. 29). On August 11,

2016, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 36, the court entered an amended judgment to correct

clerical errors in the original judgment. (Ct. Dkt. 31).

In the Motion, Petitioner alleges that, on September 7, 2016, the Immigration

Judge “terminated the withholding proceedings that form the basis for the 8 U.S.C.

§1326 conviction.” (Petition at p.5). Petitioner contends that he was eligible for

adjustment of status “but was denied an opportunity to apply for such relief because

the removal order was entered in absentia while” Petitioner was in state custody. Id. 

Petitioner represents that he was arrested on the current charge based on an order

obtained in absentia. 

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 2255 Review

Claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be based on a constitutional error,

a jurisdictional error, a defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or an unfair

procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84

(1979). Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[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, the judge must dismiss the

motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” The court does not need to hold

an evidentiary hearing or obtain a response from the government. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255; United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, Petitioner does not identify any violation of federal law or alleged facts

supportive of a federal claim. Moreover, the thrust of the Motion is that the removal

order was entered in absentia and therefore violated an undisclosed federal right. 

However, the Government’s Exhibits clearly establish that Petitioner was ordered

removed following a November 26, 2003 administrative hearing. (Response Exh.2). 

Accordingly, the Motion fails to establish a claim subject to 28 U.S.C. §2255.

- 2 - 15cr1422/17cv0739

Case 3:17-cv-00739-JM Document 2 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

In sum, the court dismisses the Motion.

Statute of Limitations

Under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f), there is a one-year statute of limitations period to file

a collateral attack on a federal conviction that runs, in pertinent part here, from the date

on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. §2255. If no direct

appeal is taken to the Ninth Circuit, a defendant’s conviction becomes final when the

time for filing a direct appeal expires. United States v. Gilbert, 807 F.3d 1197, 1199

(9th Cir. 2015).

In Gilbert, the defendant was sentenced to a 300-month custodial sentence and

the imposition of restitution. The amount of restitution was not identified in the final

judgment because the defendant’s assets were still being liquidated. Nearly two years

later, an amended judgment issued fixing the amount of restitution and, shortly

thereafter, Petitioner filed a §2255 motion. Petitioner argued that his §2255 motion

was timely because the limitations period did not begin to run until entry of the

amended judgment. The district court denied the §2255 motion as time-barred and the

Ninth Circuit affirmed. In reliance upon Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010),

the Ninth circuit concluded “that a judgment that imposes a sentence is a final

judgment.” Gilbert, 807 F,3d at 1199.

Here, final judgment was entered on November 5, 2015, and judgment became

final 14 days later when Petitioner failed to file a Notice of Appeal. See FRAP 4(b). 

Accordingly, Petitioner had until November 20, 2016, to file his Motion but waited

until April 12, 2017, to file the Motion. As the amended judgment was entered to

correct a clerical error pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 (the custodial sentence remained

the same), the Motion is time-barred. (Ct. Dkt. 31).

In sum, the Motion is dismissed as time-barred.

Waiver

The court also concludes that Petitioner waived his right to collaterally attack the

sentence. In the Plea Agreement, Petitioner specifically waived his right to appeal or

- 3 - 15cr1422/17cv0739

Case 3:17-cv-00739-JM Document 2 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 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

to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence unless the court imposed a custodial

sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

government. This waiver provision is enforceable to bar Petitioner from seeking

collateral relief because he was sentenced within the guideline range. See United

States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979 (1993). 

The Plea Agreement’s language clearly embraces a waiver of any collateral attack on

Defendant’s sentence, including a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Schuman, 127

F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (finding that defendant waived his right to

appeal an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines even though the plea

agreement did not specifically mention this right; to find otherwise “would render the

waiver meaningless”). If a waiver of appellate rights was made knowingly and

voluntarily, inquiry into the waiver’s validity must end. United States v. Nguyen, 235

F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000). A valid waiver bars a defendant from challenging his

conviction and sentence. Id. The NinthCircuit, however, has indicated that exceptions

to this rule may exist in limited circumstances, including where a § 2255 petition

challenges a plea agreement’s validity by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel

or involuntariness claim. Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 870–71 (9th Cir.

2005). Furthermore, Petitioner does not challenge the voluntariness of his waiver or

otherwise inform the court of any other basis to invalidate his waiver. The record

reflects that Petitioner’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. 

While a waiver provision does not necessarily waive ineffective assistance of

counsel claims, Petitioner validly waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence

when he executed a plea agreement expressly waiving his right to appeal or to

collaterally attack his conviction and sentence unless the court imposed a custodial

sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

government. The waiver applies because, at sentencing, Petitioner obtained the

bargained for shorter custodial sentence when the court imposed a sentence within the

- 4 - 15cr1422/17cv0739

Case 3:17-cv-00739-JM Document 2 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 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

guideline range recommended by the Government. The record reveals that Defendant’s

waiver was knowing and voluntary.

1

In sum, the court concludes that Petitioner validlywaived his right to collaterally

attack his sentence and dismisses the Motion. 

Procedural Bar 

Even if Petitioner did not waive the right to collaterally attack his sentence, he

has procedurally defaulted on his claim. A defendant procedurally defaults on claims

that he could have, but did not raise on appeal. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S.

614, 621-22 (1998). Defendant did not raise these claims on direct appeal. He does not

allege that he is innocent nor that cause and prejudice existed to excuse his procedural

default. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1996). Accordingly, the court

dismisses the Motion. 

Certificate of Appealability

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant fails to make a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denies any request for a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

In sum, the Motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2017

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

The court notes that Petitioner has had several opportunitiesto challenge either 1

the 2001 absentia hearing, or the 2003 administrative hearing, but has failed to do so. 

The record indicates that Petitioner could have challenged his removal in hearings

conducted in 2001 (the absentia proceeding), 2003 (the administrative removal

proceeding), November 22, 2009 (conviction for illegal entry), November 20, 2011,

(conviction for deported alien found in the United States), or the present underlying

case. 

- 5 - 15cr1422/17cv0739

Case 3:17-cv-00739-JM Document 2 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5