Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02100/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02100-0/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

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

TANYA MARIE MORREO,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-2100-BEN

 15-cr-2659-BEN

ORDER

Movant has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is filed timely and the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND 

Movant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and was convicted of importing 

9.91 kilograms of methamphetamine with a purity level of 99.7% in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 952 and 960. She was sentenced to 180 months. The sentence was affirmed on 

appeal. Movant now asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial 

misconduct.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under section 2255, a movant is entitled to relief if the sentence: (1) was imposed 

in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) was given by a court 

without jurisdiction to do so; (3) was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by 

law; or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. 

Speelman, 431 F.3d 1226, 1230 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). If it is clear the movant has failed to 

state a claim, or has “no more than conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts and 

refuted by the record,” a district court may deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary 

hearing. United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). That is the case here.

Case 3:18-cv-02100-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

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

DISCUSSION

In this case, the Court notes that the PSR calculated Movant’s Guideline range as 

360 months to life. However, the maximum sentence for the offense as charged was 240 

months. Had the government filed an 851 enhancement, which it could have done, rather 

than a maximum sentence of 240 months, 240 months would have been the minimum 

mandatory sentence. Sentencing Transcript at 17. The Government calculated the 

Guideline range as 240 to 240 because of the statutory maximum sentence cap. Movant 

calculated her Guideline range as 155 to 188 months. Regardless, all agreed that 

Movant’s criminal history score was 16 and criminal history category was VI.

Ultimately, this Court imposed a sentence of 180 months. The sentence was 60 

months below the Guidelines range of 240 to 240 as calculated by the Probation

Department and as calculated by the government. Against this backdrop, Movant asserts 

two claims.

Movant asserts her attorney rendered ineffective assistance for several reasons. To 

prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that his 

attorney’s performance was unreasonable under the prevailing professional standards and 

that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 694-95 (1984). There is a “strong presumption” that counsel’s conduct is 

reasonable, Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1995), and “[r]eview of 

counsel’s performance is highly deferential.” United States v. Ferreira-Alameda, 815 

F.2d 1251, 1253 (9th Cir. 1986). To establish “prejudice” under Strickland’s second 

prong, a petitioner must show a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he 

would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. 

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985). Movant has not established either prong of the 

Strickland requirements.

To begin, Movant claims that her counsel should have obtained a psychological 

evaluation for her. She may have been suffering lingering depressive effects of a difficult 

childhood. However, Movant identifies no specific evidence of acute mental illness at 

Case 3:18-cv-02100-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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 time of the offense or during these criminal proceedings that would cause effective 

counsel to obtain a psychological evaluation. Her primary argument is that had she been 

sane, she would not have pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. This general 

allegation lacks important specifics and lacks evidentiary support. Moreover, Movant 

claims that she wanted to plead guilty early in order to receive a four-level downward 

departure for fast-track. Once again, this lacks evidentiary support and would not have 

changed the outcome. Even with a fast-track departure, the Guideline range would have 

been reduced to 235 to 293, barely below the statutory maximum of 240, and still far 

above the actual sentence of 180 months. It can be presumed that her attorney 

understood this and made reasonable strategic decisions. Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1036. 

Movant also argues that her counsel should have objected to her criminal history 

calculation in the PSR. However, the calculation was correct, and her attorney 

presumably knew this and cannot be considered ineffective for not making a known, 

defective objection. Id.

Movant also argues that her attorney was ineffective at sentencing because he did 

not “prove” she deserved a minor role reduction. At the same time, she asserts that the 

prosecutor committed misconduct by not cross-examining her about her declaration 

offered in support of her minor role request. There are several defects in these related 

arguments. But the reasons for denying relief on these grounds can be summarized, as 

follows. 

First, the sentencing transcript confirms that her attorney did zealously advocate 

for a minor role reduction. Second, the Court accepted and assumed to be true Movant’s 

last-minute declaration of facts about her role in the offense. Third, the prosecutor had 

no obligation to cross-examine Movant about her declaration. Fourth, the Court decided 

based on her declaration and her counsel’s advocacy that she was eligible, but not 

entitled, to a minor role reduction. Fifth, the Court of Appeals considered the argument 

and affirmed this Court’s decision declining to give a minor role reduction. Finally, even 

had the minor role reduction been granted, the ultimate sentence imposed would have 

Case 3:18-cv-02100-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

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

remained the same as a sufficient but not greater than necessary sentence in light of all of 

the section 3553 sentencing factors. 

 To sum up, there is little to overcome the presumption that her attorney’s 

performance was effective. Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1036. Even assuming, for the sake of 

argument, that the performance prong was established, Movant has not viably established 

the prejudice prong as required by Hill, 474 U.S. at 56-57. Both prongs must be satisfied 

for relief. Neither prong has been established. As the Court remarked during the 

sentencing hearing, “Well, Mr. Stewart, once again, I think you have done an outstanding 

job on behalf of your client. I have to tell you this. I hope your client understands.” 

Sentencing Transcript at 24.

CONCLUSION

Movant’s claims are denied without hearing because they neither establish a 

debatable claim of ineffective performance nor resulting prejudice. 

The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DENIED.

No Certificate of Appealability

A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists could 

debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 

presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 

certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2020 ____________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02100-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4