Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02257/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02257-0/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,

CASE NO. 11cr4482-LAB-1 and

12cv2257-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

RAYMUNDO CASTRO-SALAZAR,

Defendant.

Defendant Raymundo Castro-Salazar pleaded guilty to importation of cocaine and

was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment, which was the mandatory minimum sentence,

plus five years’ supervised release. He then filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

The Court then issued an order (Docket no. 29) finding most of Castro-Salazar’s

claims baseless. The Court does not revisit those rulings, but relies on the same reasoning

to deny them in this order. 

The previous order also required the government to respond to his only potentially

meritorious claim. That one claim was based on Castro-Salazar’s contentions that his

attorney had refused to explain the plea agreement to him, or even let him read it, and that

he didn’t understand the change of plea proceedings because he speaks Spanish primarily. 

This contradicted Magistrate Judge Louisa Porter’s findings, particularly her determination

that Castro-Salazar understood the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed, and

- 1 - 11cr4482 and 12cv2257

Case 3:12-cv-02257-LAB Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 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 terms of the plea agreement. (Docket no. 13 at 2:17–19.). The government was therefore

required to file a transcript of Castro-Salazar’s change of plea hearing, so that the Court

could determine whether her findings were sound. The government has filed that transcript

and it is now clear that the remaining claim has no merit.

Castro-Salazar’s claim that he couldn’t understand what was going on is belied by the

transcript. First,Castro-Salazar was one of four defendants at that hearing. The other three

were Spanish speakers who were afforded an interpreter. (See Docket no. 30 (Tr. of Change

of Plea Hrg.) at 2:2–10.) Had Castro-Salazar wanted or needed an interpreter as did the

three other defendants, it would have been an obvious and easy matter for him to request

one. Second, he responded appropriately in English to Judge Porter’s questions. Most of

these (as is typical at change of plea hearings) required only a short answer, but CastroSalazar’s answers even to impromptu questions were phrased in such a way that it is clear

he speaks English and was not simply reacting to his attorney’s promptings. For example:

THE COURT: . . . By pleading guilty today you’re giving up those

Constitutional rights that are dependent on that trial. Do you each

understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

(Pause while the Court heard other matters.)

THE COURT: And did I get a yes from you, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, you did.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Tr. of Change of Plea Hrg., at 4:3–9.)

At the same hearing, Castro-Salazar confirmed, under oath, that the plea agreement

had been shown and explained to him, and that he had no questions about it.

THE COURT: Mr. Castro, I’m looking at your plea agreement. At the bottom

of each page I see the initials R.C., are those your initials, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And at the bottom of the page I see what looks like your

signature. Is that your signature?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is.

- 2 - 11cr4482 and 12cv2257

Case 3:12-cv-02257-LAB Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 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

THE COURT: Sir, prior to initialing these pages and signing that final page,

did you have the opportunity to read this document and talk with your

attorney about it?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about it?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

(Tr. of Change of Plea Hrg., 7:10–22.) Castro-Salazar’s attorney also affirmed that he had

discussed the plea agreement thoroughly with Castro-Salazar, and that the latter understood

it. (Id., 8:25–9:4.)

It is important to add that Judge Porter clearly had a good opportunity to observe

Castro-Salazar’s demeanor as he was questioned and gave his answers, and was in a good

position to determine whether he understood what was being said to him or asked of him. 

Her findings are therefore well-grounded in the record.

The transcript also offers additional confirmation that the Court’s earlier rulings were

correct. For example, Castro-Salazar was not under the impression, as he now claims, that

he would be sentenced to a term of 45 to 57 months. Rather, Judge Porter pointed out to

him, and he confirmed he understood, that he was subject to a mandatory minimum

sentence of ten years plus a term of supervised release of at least five years. (Tr. of Change

of Plea Hrg., 4:12–23.)

In short, the record makes clear Castro-Salazar’s motion is meritless and he is entitled

to no relief. See § 2255 (b) (if “the files and records of the case conclusively show that the

prisoner is entitled to no relief,” no hearing is needed and the government need respond). 

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 28, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cr4482 and 12cv2257

Case 3:12-cv-02257-LAB Document 2 Filed 01/29/14 Page 3 of 3