Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00467/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00467-0/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

GRISELDA CASTANEDAAGUSTIN,

Defendant-Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14-CV-0467 W

 09-CR-3408 W

 

ORDER DENYING

(1) PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS [DOC. 38];

(2) MOTION TO AMEND

[DOC. 40]; AND

(3) CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Griselda Castaneda-Agustin’s Motion for

Time Reduction by an Inmate in Federal Custody Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the

“Petition” [Doc. 27] ). Having reviewed the Petition, as well as the relevant records 1

on the docket, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

The record establishes that on April 5, 2010, Petitioner pled guilty to one count

of importing methamphetamine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952

“Doc.” refers to the docket entry in the Petitioner’s criminal case.

1

- 1 - 09cr3408 / 14cv0467W

Case 3:14-cv-00467-W Document 2 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 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

and 960. (See Plea Agree. [Doc. 27]¶ IA; Minute Entry [Doc. 26].) In connection with

her guilty plea, Petitioner signed a Plea Agreement on March 20, 2010. (Plea Agree.,

p. 10.) On September 7, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced to 51 months in the custody

of the Bureau of Prisons and 5 years supervised release. (See Minute Entry [Doc. 30].) 

On February 28, 2014, Petitioner filed the Petition. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a

motion to amend.

Under 28 U.S.C. §2255, the Petition is subject to a one-year limitations period.

This limitations period begins to run from the latest of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by

governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a

motion by such governmental action;

(3)the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the

Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme

Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review;

or; 

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. §2255(f).

Here, Petitioner’s judgment was entered September 7, 2010. (See Judgment

[Doc. 31].) Because Petitioner did not file a direct appeal, the judgment became

final on September 17, 2010, upon the expiration of the time to file an appeal. See

Moshier v. U.S., 402 F.3d 116, 118 (2d Cir. 2005) (“for purposes of § 2255 motions,

an unappealed federal criminal judgment becomes final when the time for filing a

direct appeal expires”); Vargas-Garcia v. U.S., 2008 WL 1908435 (S.D. Cal. April

29, 2008) (citing Moshier). Because Petitioner did not file her Petition until

February 28, 2014—more than a 3 years after her conviction became final— the

Petition is time barred unless another provision of section 2255(f) applies.

In the Petition, Petitioner argues that tolling should apply because of

correspondence she sent to her counsel from May 2011 to June 2011. In that

correspondence, Petitioner stated that she did not “think that the government gave

- 2 - 09cr3408 / 14cv0467W

Case 3:14-cv-00467-W Document 2 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 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

me a fair deal” and asked about her right to appeal. (Pet. [Doc. 38-1], p.33. ) 2

Petitioner contends this correspondence demonstrate that “Petitioner wished to

pursue any available options of collateral review of her conviction,” and that

counsel’s failure to respond to her “impeded Petitioner’s ability to file her § 2255

within the initial 12 month period.” (Id., pp. 33–34.) 

However, Petitioner also admits that “[s]ometime in early July 2011,” she

talked to her attorney and was told that the “signed plea agreement precluded her

from pursuing collateral attack.” (Pet., p. 35.) Assuming Petitioner did not know

about the appellate waiver when she signed the Plea Agreement in March 2010

(which would otherwise bar the Petition), she now admits learning about the waiver

in July 2011, when she talked to counsel. Because the Petition confirms that

Petitioner discovered “the facts supporting the claim” for ineffective assistance in

July 2011, the one-year limitations period began at that time and expired in July

2012.3

Petitioner also contends that tolling is supported by two events that occurred

in 2013: her cousin’s assassination in Mexico and an immigration judge’s alleged

statements during her removal proceeding. This argument lacks merit for at least

two reasons. First, neither event supports tolling under section 2255(f). The

events do not relate to any impediment created by the government, and clearly do

not relate to a newly recognized right by the Supreme Court. Moreover, because

neither event relates to Petitioner’s criminal case or counsel’s representation of her

This order refers to the electronically stamped page numbers in the Petition, which 2

appear at the top of the document as “Page __ of 55”. 

 One of the claims in her Petition is for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the 3

appellate waiver in the Plea Agreement. (See e.g. Pet., p. 5 (“Therefore, the omission of

Petitioner’s ability to collaterally attack her conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance

of counsel from Petitioner’s plea agreement can hardly be viewed as unintended or deemed a

harmless error.”).) 

- 3 - 09cr3408 / 14cv0467W

Case 3:14-cv-00467-W Document 2 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 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

in that case, her cousin’s tragic assassination and immigration judge’s comments do

not constitute “facts supporting the claim or claims” in the Petition. 

Second, as outlined above, the Petition establishes that by July 2011,

Petitioner discovered counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance when she learned

about the appellate waiver in the Plea Agreement. Thus, regardless of the events in

2013, the limitations period began to run no later than July 2011. 

For all these reasons, the Petition is time barred. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES the Petition [Doc. 38] and motion to amend [Doc. 40]. 

Because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of the

claims debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk of the Court shall close

the district court file

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 11, 2014

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 4 - 09cr3408 / 14cv0467W

Case 3:14-cv-00467-W Document 2 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 4