Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02681/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02681-0/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

JOSE LUIS BARRAGAN-CORONA,

Petitioner,

Case Nos. 11cv2681 BEN

 10cr3405 BEN

ORDER DENYING § 2255

MOTION

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Jose Luis Barragan-Corona moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a reduction in

his sentence based on his alien status and challenges to Bureau of Prisons policies which preclude him

from participating in certain pre-release programs. (Dkt. No. 51.) Because, as discussed below, he

waived the right to challenge his sentence and his Equal Protection argument lacks merit, the Court

DENIES the motion. 

DISCUSSION

I. Waiver

The Ninth Circuit recognizes strong public policy considerations justifying the enforcement

of a defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack a judgment. United States v.

Novarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1990). Waivers play an important role in the plea

bargaining process and help ensure finality. Id. at 322. Generally, courts enforce a defendant’s waiver

of his right to appeal, as long as the waiver was “knowingly and voluntarily made” and “encompasses

11cv2681 

10cr3405

- 1 -

Case 3:11-cv-02681-BEN Document 2 Filed 12/22/11 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 defendant’s right to appeal on the grounds claimed on appeal.” United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d

956, 958 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

Petitioner waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement.

(Petitioner’s Plea Agreement § XI.) The plea agreement states that “[i]n 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 his sentence . . . 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.” (Id.) The Court did not impose a sentence above the high end

of the guideline range. Petitioner’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to collaterally attack

his sentence requires denial of his § 2255 motion. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d at 322 (finding a

defendant could not ignore his part of the bargain in a plea agreement after obtaining concessions from

the government).

II. Equal Protection

Petitioner filed the present motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but his Equal Protection challenge

to the constitutionality of certain Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) policies is better construed as a challenge

to the manner in which his sentence is being executed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Hernandez v.

Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (instructing that petitions challenging the

“manner, location or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241”); see

also Montano-Figuero v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1998) (illustrating that challenges to

Bureau of Prisoners policies are challenges to the execution of an inmate’s sentence). Construing his

motion liberally, the Court considers Petitioner’s Equal Protection claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See

Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting a court’s “duty to construe pro se

pleadings liberally”). 

Petitioner claims that the Bureau of Prisons policypreventing him from participating in certain

programs or being housed in certain facilities due to his alien status violates his right to Equal

Protection. However, Bureau of Prisons policies preventing deportable aliens from participating in

certain programs survive constitutional challenge. Cf. McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th

Cir. 1999) (finding BOP exclusion of prisoners with detainers, including INS detainers, from

11cv2681 

10cr3405

- 2 -

Case 3:11-cv-02681-BEN Document 2 Filed 12/22/11 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

community-based program based on petitioners’ alien status did not violate Equal Protection).

Additionally, a number of district courts have also found that policies preventing alien

prisoners from participating in certain pre-release programs are also justified because the purpose of

the program — helping prisoners reenter the communityafter serving their sentence — is not advanced

in the case of prisoners who will be deported upon release. See Lizarraga-Lopez v. United States, 89

F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1169-70 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (upholding deportable alien’s ineligibility for community

confinement); United States v. Rodas-Jacome, No. 06cv1481, 2007WL1231630, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr.

24, 2007) (upholding restrictions for alien prisoners to obtain “good time” credits in rehabilitation

programs). Because deportable alien prisoners pose a greater flight risk and the public policy

justifications for pre-release programs are inapplicable, the challenged policies survive constitutional

scrutiny and Petitioner’s Equal Protection claim fails. The Court also denies relief under § 2241.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall close case number 11cv2681.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 22, 2011

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

11cv2681 

10cr3405

- 3 -

Case 3:11-cv-02681-BEN Document 2 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 3