Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02034/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02034-0/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,

CRIM CASE NO. 14cr990WQH

CIVIL CASE NO. 16cv2034WQH

 v. ORDER

DOMINGO EDWARD OWEN,

Defendant/Petitioner.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by

Defendant/Petitioner. (ECF No. 43). 

On April 06, 2014, Defendant/Petitioner entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a

Plea Agreement to Count 1 of the Information charging Defendant with knowingly

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§841(a)(1). (ECF No. 16). In the Plea Agreement, Defendant/Petitioner admitted, in

relevant part, that he knowingly possessed with intent to distribute methamphetamine. 

Id. at 3. The Plea Agreement further stated:

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the plea agreement, defendant waives to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction. Defendant also waives to the full extent

of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence, including any restitution order, unless the Court: (1) denies defendant’s request for a minor role reduction pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2(b), in which case defendant may only appeal the denial of minor role; or (2) imposes

a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range as

calculated by the Government, excluding any recommended variance.

Id. at 11. 

The Presentence Report concluded that the Defendant/Petitioner “has not shown

- 1 - 14cr990 WQH

Case 3:16-cv-02034-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/13/17 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

that his role was any less culpable than others, which included the individuals who

loaded the vehicle and instructed him to cross.” Presentence Report at 6. 

At the time of sentencing, the Court made detailed findings and concluded that

Defendant did not meet his burden to prove that he was entitled to the minor-role

adjustment. (ECF No. 35). After a three level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, the Court concluded that the total offense level was 35, the Criminal

History Category was II and the guideline range was121 to 135 months. The Court

varied downward from the guideline range and imposed a term of imprisonment of 78

months. (ECF No. 27). 

 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on the grounds that the Court erred 

in the decision not to grant a minor role reduction. 

On October 02, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed

Defendant’s sentence and stated:

Owen asserts that the district court erred by declining to award a minorrole adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review a district court’s

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its determination that a

defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v.

Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct.

1467 (2015). The record reflects that the court properly applied the Guidelines and our precedent, considering the totality of the circumstances as well as Owen’s role in the smuggling operation. See id. 1068-69;

United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011. The district court did not clearly error in denying the adjustment. See

Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1068-69.

United States v. Owen, 615 Fed. App’x 439, 440 (9th Cir. 2015).

On August 11, 2016, Defendant filed a motion under § 2255 to vacate, set aside,

or correct his sentence. (ECF No. 43).

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Defendant/Petitioner moves the Court to vacate his sentence on the grounds that 

this Court failed to apply a minor role adjustment. Defendant/Petitioner asserts that the

new “minor role” amendment to the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 support his claim that he is

entitled to the minor-role adjustment. 

Plaintiff/Respondent United States of America contends that

- 2 - 14cr990 WQH

Case 3:16-cv-02034-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/13/17 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

Defendant/Petitioner triggered the minor-role appeal rights when he filed his appeal in

the Court of Appeals and that the § 2255 motion constitutes a collateral attack on the

sentence foreclosed by the waiver provision of the Plea Agreement. 

Plaintiff/Respondent asserts that the minor-role findings by this district court were

adequately supported, and affirmed on appeal. Plaintiff/Respondent asserts that the

minor-role Amendment 794 does not apply retroactively to this case.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court

established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that

the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,

or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence

was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral

attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct

the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. §2255.

RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record shows that the Defendant/Petitioner has waived his right

to collaterally attack his sentence under § 2255. In exchange for the Government’s

concessions in the Plea Agreement, the Defendant waived 

to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence, including any restitution order, unless the Court: (1) denies defendant’s request for a minor role reduction pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2(b), in which case defendant may only appeal the denial of minor role; or (2) imposes a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range as calculated by the Government, excluding any

recommended variance.

(ECF No. 16 at 11). While the Defendant/Petitioner reserved his right to appeal the

denial of minor role, he waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. This waiver

is clear and express. Plea agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language

will generally be enforced if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face and the

waiver was knowing and voluntary. United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th

Cir. 2007). Defendant/Petitioner makes no claim that the plea agreement was not

- 3 - 14cr990 WQH

Case 3:16-cv-02034-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/13/17 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

knowing and voluntary. 

At the time of sentencing, the Government recommended an adjusted offense

level of 29 and a resulting guideline range of 97-121 months. (ECF No. 22). The

government recommended a sentence of 78 months. Id. The Court imposed a sentence

of 78 months. (ECF No. 27). The sentence imposed was not above the high end of the

guideline range as calculated by the Government at the time of sentencing. Pursuant

to the terms of the Plea Agreement, the Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack

his conviction and sentence in this case. In addition, the Defendant/Petitioner presents

no grounds for relief under Section 2255 based upon Amendment 794. 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 provides in part, “Based on the defendant’s role in the offense,

decrease the offense level as follows: . . . (B) If the defendant was a minor participant

in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 On November 1,

2015, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 which

amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823

F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals explained that “the Amendment

generally adopted the approach of this Court and the Seventh Circuit, stating that when

a district court conducts an assessment of whether a defendant is to be compared with

other participant” in the crime, not with a hypothetical average participant.” Id. at 523. 

The Court concluded that the Amendment was a clarifying amendment and “applies

retroactively to direct appeals.” Id. 

In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s sentence on October

2, 2015. At the time that Amendment 728 became effective, this case was not on direct

appeal. At the time of sentencing, this Court detailed Defendant’s role in the offense

as compared to other participants in the crime and denied the minor role adjustment. 

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that this Court properly applied the

Guidelines, and did not err in denying the minor role adjustment. The Court of Appeals

concluded that “the record reflects that the [district] court properly applied the

Guidelines and our precedent, considering the totality of the circumstances as well as

- 4 - 14cr990 WQH

Case 3:16-cv-02034-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/13/17 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

Owen’s role in the smuggling operation.” United States v. Owen, 615 Fed. App’x 439,

440 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant/Petitioner has failed to set forth any fact or law to

demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by

Defendant/Petitioner (ECF No. 43) is denied.

DATED: January 13, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cr990 WQH

Case 3:16-cv-02034-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5