Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00883/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00883-0/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. 14CR3057WQH

CASE NO. 18CV0883 WQH

vs. ORDER

VICTOR JESUS GASTELUM (5),

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence by a person in federal custody. (ECF No. 557). Defendant

moves the court to vacate his conviction and sentence stating that he is “applying for

the benefit of the 2.5 reduction of time of this sentence.” (ECF No. 557 at 4). 

Defendant does not set forth any grounds for relief or supporting facts in support of the

grounds for relief. The Court finds that the issues raised in the petition are appropriate

for summary disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner 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.” A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly

- 1 - 14cr3057WQH

Case 3:18-cv-00883-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that

the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255

Proceedings for the United States District courts. When this standard is satisfied,

neither a hearing nor a response from the government is required. See Marrow v.

United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985).

 RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his

right to bring a § 2255 motion. In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the

plea agreement, the Defendant waived “all rights to appeal and to collaterally attack

every aspect of the conviction and sentence. The only exceptions are 1) Defendant may

appeal a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range recommended by

the Government at sentencing . . . , and 2) Defendant may collaterally attack the

conviction or sentence on the basis that Defendant received ineffective assistance of

counsel.” (ECF No. 527 at 11-12). This waiver is clear, express and unequivocal. Plea

agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally be enforced

if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo, 298

F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). 

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

level of 27 and a resulting guideline range of 70-87 months. (ECF No. 547). The

Government recommended a sentence of 60 months. (ECF No. 547).1

 The Court

imposed a sentence of 60 months. (ECF No. 552 at 2). Pursuant to the terms of the

plea agreement, the Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence

imposed. 

Further, it plainly appears from the face of the petition and the record of prior

proceedings that the Defendant is not entitled to relief. The motion fails to set forth any

1 The Plea Agreement stated “The parties will jointly recommend a 60-month custodial sentence unless any applicable mandatory minimum applies in which case the parties will recommend that Defendant be sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence.” (ECF No. 572 at 10-11). 

- 2 - 14cr3057WQH

Case 3:18-cv-00883-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

grounds for relief or supporting facts in support of any grounds for relief.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for time reduction by an inmate in

federal custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 557) filed by the Defendant is denied.

DATED: May 9, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cr3057WQH

Case 3:18-cv-00883-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3