Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01202/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cr4618-LAB-1 and

12cv1202-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)

vs.

RENE MUNOZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

Defendant Rene Munoz-Martinez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to

one count of importation of methamphetamine. He received the benefit of acceptance of

responsibility and fast track. On May 14, 2011, he was sentenced to 46 months’

imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release for importation of

methamphetamine.

Approximately a year after he was sentenced, Munoz-Martinez, now a prisoner in the

Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas, filed a motion (the “Motion”) pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to reduce his sentence. (Docket no. 25 in 10cr4618 and no. 1 in

12cv1202.) The Motion doesn’t say why Munoz-Martinez thinks his sentence ought to be

reduced. The Motion was submitted on a form questionnaire available through the Northern

District of Texas and intended for use by defendants seeking reduction pursuant to

§ 3582(c)(2) under the retroactive “crack cocaine amendment” to the sentencing guidelines.

- 1 - 10cr4618 and 12cv1202

Case 3:12-cv-01202-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/18/12 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

See http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal.html. Although the Motion represents that

Munoz-Martinez’s conviction involved crack cocaine, in fact it involved methamphetamine.

Munoz-Martinez is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) or any other

provision of § 3582(c).

Based on the timing of the Motion, it appears Munoz-Martinez might have been

1

attempting to file his motion as being brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But construing

it as a § 2255 motion would be futile, because Munoz-Martinez waived appeal and collateral

attack.2

Because Munoz-Martinez is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c), the

Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Munoz-Martinez filed the Motion approximately a year after he was sentenced. The 1

date he submitted it is unclear, however; it says he signed it on “this 4 of _____, 2012.” The

postmark is illegible. It wasn’t received and filed until May 17, 2012, however. Regardless

of what the actual date was, it appears Munoz-Martinez was trying to comply with § 2255(f)’s

one-year limitations period.

 As part of his plea agreement, Munoz-Martinez waived appeal or collateral attack, 2

unless the Court imposed a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range

recommended by the government pursuant to the plea agreement. (Docket no. 12 at

10:6–18.) The government kept its bargain by making the recommendations required by the

plea agreement. (Compare Docket no. 12 at 7:9–8:8 (plea agreement), with Docket no.19

(government’s sentencing memorandum).) Then the Court sentenced him below the

guideline range.

- 2 - 10cr4618 and 12cv1202

Case 3:12-cv-01202-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 2