Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00526/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00526-0/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. 15CR0108-LAB/

16CV0526-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 22]

vs.

PEDRO MARTINEZ-TOMAS,

Defendant.

Pedro Martinez-Tomas (“Martinez”) has filed a motion to vacate his sentence under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed Federal Defenders of

San Diego to represent Mr. Martinez, and offered Federal Defenders an opportunity to file

a supplemental brief in support of Mr. Martinez’s claims by November 15, 2016. Federal

Defenders did not file a supplemental brief. Also on November 1, the Court ordered the

Government to respond to Mr. Martinez’s motion. On November 17, 2016, Assistant U.S.

Attorney Susan Park filed a response opposing Martinez’s request for relief.

Ms. Park’s opposition brief points out that as part of his plea agreement Martinez

waived the right to appeal or to collaterally attack his conviction, provided he received no

more than 27 months in custody. He got the benefit of his bargain when the Court

sentenced him to 27 months. Martinez’s plea agreement and the transcript of his change

of plea establish that his waiver of the right to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction

- 1 - 15cr0108/16cv0526

Case 3:16-cv-00526-LAB Document 2 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. So the Court finds that the waiver is enforceable, and

forecloses the relief that Martinez seeks.

Even were the Court to consider Martinez’s claim on the merits, his motion would be

denied. Martinez’s argument is that his sentence was somehow undermined by the holding

in Johnson v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), but the argument is

unsupported by any basis in that decision. In Johnson, the Supreme Court invalidated the

residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) on the

ground that the clause was vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2557-58. Martinez was not sentenced under

the ACCA, nor under any other residual clause. He was sentenced under a specific provision

of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that provides for higher sentence

if an offender was previously convicted of alien smuggling – as Martinez was. Unlike the

defendant in Johnson, Martinez pled guilty to an offense that is explicitly defined and

referenced under the Guidelines; his argument about vagueness misses the mark. 

Martinez’s waiver of the right to collaterally attack his sentence is enforceable against

him, and he’s got no legitimate beef in any event. His motion to vacate his sentence is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cr0108/16cv0526

Case 3:16-cv-00526-LAB Document 2 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2