Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02370/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02370-0/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

CARLOS EDUARDO SERRANOMENOSCAL,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-2370-BEN

 17-cr-1584(3)-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 pursuant to a plea agreement and was convicted of 

conspiracy to distribute cocaine intended for unlawful importation in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 959, 960 and 963. Movant and his two co-defendants were interdicted while 

transporting 578 kilograms of cocaine on a 32-foot panga-style vessel in the Eastern 

Pacific Ocean. According to the PSR, Movant was the pilot of the boat at the time of 

arrest and refused to slow the boat when ordered by U.S. Coast Guard officers. Instead, 

Movant increased the speed of the boat and attempted to elude the officers while coconspirators threw bales of cocaine overboard, requiring officers to fire live ordinance to 

render the engines inoperable. All three co-conspirators were arrested, charged, and 

pleaded guilty. Movant was sentenced to 108 months. One co-conspirator received a

shorter sentence and one received a longer sentence. Only Movant seeks to collaterally 

attack his sentence. Movant now asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Case 3:18-cv-02370-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/08/20 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

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

In this case, the Court notes that without the plea agreement, Movant faced a 

minimum mandatory 10-year sentence, if convicted. Now, he claims that his attorney 

promised him a 60-month sentence and that this was bad advice constituting ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Importantly, Movant does not claim that he would have declined a 

plea agreement and gone to trial, had he better understood his sentencing exposure. 

Movant does not claim that he was actually innocent or that he had a viable defense. The 

facts against him were strong and the government’s case was solid.

Case 3:18-cv-02370-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/08/20 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 Court notes that the PSR calculated Movant’s Guideline range to be 210 to 

260 months with a minimum mandatory term of 120 months. Because Movant agreed to 

plead guilty, he benefited from a very low 84-month sentencing recommendation from 

the government. Movant also enjoyed the possibility of qualifying for safety valve relief 

– an opportunity Movant welcomed. As a result of entering the plea agreement, the 

Government calculated the Guideline range with a two-level reduction of safety valve 

and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The government’s resulting

Guideline range was 135 to 168 months. Movant likewise calculated his Guideline range 

as 135 to 168 months. Because of the safety valve, it also became possible for Movant to 

receive a sentence below the 10-year minimum mandatory sentence. As mentioned 

above, ultimately, this Court imposed a sentence of 108 months. The sentence was 27 

months below the low end of the Guideline range of 135 to 168 as agreed to by the 

Movant and the government and far below the Guideline range of 210 to 262 months set

out in the PSR. 

Moreover, Movant’s assertion that his attorney promised a 60-month sentence is 

belied by the record. The Plea Agreement is bereft of such language and warned the 

Movant that the sentence was ultimately up to this Court. During the plea colloquy, the 

Magistrate Judge explicitly informed Movant that he faced a minimum mandatory 

sentence of 10 years. Yet, Movant did not indicate surprise. Movant did not ask for 

clarification. Movant did not object that it was twice as long as his attorney had advised. 

Likewise, at the sentencing hearing, when Movant was invited to allocate, he said nothing 

about misunderstanding the plea deal. After sentence was imposed, This Court directly 

asked Movant whether he agreed to waive appeal and collateral attack. He said nothing 

about the sentence just imposed being different than what his attorney had promised or 

that the government had promised. There is no declaration from his attorney that she had 

promised any length of sentence. There are no attorney file notes or declarations from 

others that might substantiate Movant’s claim.

Case 3:18-cv-02370-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/08/20 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

 To sum up, Movant received great benefit from entering the plea agreement that 

his attorney had obtained from the government. There is nothing to overcome the 

presumption that his 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 claimed or proven 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.

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 8, 2020 ____________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02370-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4