Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02027/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02027-0/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

RAYMUNDO OCTAVIO 

RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE,

Petitioner/Defendant,

CASE NO. 

09cr1606-LAB/11cv2027-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE,

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent/Plaintiff.

After Petitioner Raymondo Octavio Rodriguez-Aguirre pleaded guilty to one count of

importing marijuana, the Court sentenced him to 70 months in prison. Judgment was

entered on October 2, 2009, and three days later he appealed the sentence. The Ninth

Circuit denied the appeal and affirmed the sentence, and the mandate was spread on

December 13, 2010. Then on September 1, 2011, Rodriguez-Aguirre filed a motion pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The petition claims Rodriguez-Aguirre never appealed because he didn’t have the

money to file an appeal. It also states his attorney never filed an appeal either. This is

obviously wrong, though. Rodriguez-Aguirre’s attorney filed an appeal on his behalf, raising

most of the issues he now seeks to raise. Because the Ninth Circuit has already adjudicated 

/ / /

- 1 - 09cr1606/11cv2027

Case 3:11-cv-02027-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 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

these claims, they are barred by res judicata. And, in any event, this Court cannot overrule

the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Only two issues were not adjudicated on appeal. First, Rodriguez-Aguirre claims his

plea agreement promised that his offense level was 22 points, and that he would be

sentenced to 41 to 51 months. He claims he was surprised to find out that wasn’t true, and

blames his counsel for misleading him. These alleged errors form the basis for his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim.

The transcript of the change of plea hearing before Magistrate Judge Louisa Porter

was filed in the docket (Docket no. 27), and shows Rodriguez-Aguirre’s representations in

his Petition are inaccurate. At the hearing, he was advised that the sentencing guidelines

were advisory and not binding on the Court, and that the Court could vary from those

recommendations and sentence Rodriguez-Aguirre up to the maximum term of life in prison,

and said he understood what Judge Porter had told him. (Id. at 4:2–10, 5:7–12, 5:23–6:5.)

Judge Porter also found that Rodriguez-Aguirre’s guilty plea was both knowing and

voluntary. (Id. at 12:14–15.) Rodriguez-Aguirre therefore was not misled by his attorney into

believing that the Court was required to sentence him to no more than 51 months in prison,

as he now claims.

Rodriguez-Aguirre also claims the government breached its plea agreement by

recommending a higher offense level than mentioned in the plea agreement. Unfortunately

for him, the government’s sentencing memorandum is also filed in the docket (Docket no.

19), and again belies his argument. It shows that the government advocated for an adjusted

offense level of 22, corresponding to a sentence of 41 to 51 months, and the government

recommended 41 months. (Id.at 1.) This corresponds exactly with what Rodriguez-Aguirre

now argues he should have gotten. The government therefore did not breach its plea

agreement.

Finally, Rodriguez-Aguirre raises the argument that his equal protection rights were

violated because, as a non-citizen, he cannot take advantage of community-based drug

treatment programs that could lessen his sentence. This claim has been rejected by the

- 2 - 09cr1606/11cv2027

Case 3:11-cv-02027-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 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

Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Arias-Casillas, 2012 WL 2191565, slip op. at *2 (S.D.Cal.,

June 14, 2012) (citing McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 (9 Cir. 1999) and United States th

v. Alvarez-Cardenas, 902 F.2d 734,737 (9 Cir. 1990)). th

For these reasons, the petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________

___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 3 - 09cr1606/11cv2027

10-4-12

Case 3:11-cv-02027-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 3