Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03093/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03093-0/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

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv3093-LAB and

12cr847-LAB-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.§ 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent.

Petitioner and Defendant Roberto Hernandez-Hernandez pleaded guilty in this Court

to one count of being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §

1326, for which he was sentenced to a term of 55 months’ imprisonment. After his attorney

filed an appeal of the sentence, Hernandez, pro se, on filed a petition in the Central District

of California, which was construed as a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

transferred to this Court. The Court on January 24, 2013 denied the motion without

prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.

On September 12, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Hernandez’s sentence, and on

December 18, he filed a second § 2255 motion in the Central District, which was again

transferred here.

Hernandez used a Central District court-approved form for § 2255 motions. He

indicated on the form that he believes his conviction was obtained by use of evidence

pursuant to an unlawful arrest, and also that it was obtained by the unconstitutional failure

- 1 - 13cv127 and 12CR847

Case 3:13-cv-03093-LAB Document 6 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 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

of the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence, but he provided no details. It also

appears he believes the Court misread his criminal history by accepting the presentence

report. He also appears to believe the Court erred, or was negligent, in its application of the

sentencing factors.

The sentence itself was appealed and affirmed. Even if the Court were inclined to

revisit the sentence and reweigh the sentencing factors, it is without authority to do so. 

To the extent Hernandez is worried about his criminal history being misinterpreted,

his fears are unfounded. A transcript of the sentencing hearing was filed in the docket

(Docket no. 34), and the Court discussed this issue. At the hearing, Hernandez was

especially concerned that a particular conviction for assault not be used against him.

Hernandez argued that the defendant in that other case was someone else with the same

name. The Court accepted his argument, however, and did not consider that conviction

when it sentenced him. (Id. at 43:22–44:5.)

Finally, to the extent Hernandez is objecting to illegally-obtained evidence, or the

government’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, he waived these claims by pleading

guilty. See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002) (claim under Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83 (1963) waived by guilty plea); United States v. Brizan, 709 F.3d 864, 866–67

(9 Cir. 2013) (“An unconditional guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses and cures th

all cedent constitutional defects . . . .”)

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv127 and 12CR847

Case 3:13-cv-03093-LAB Document 6 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 2