Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01131/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

Case Nos. 12-CR-00387-LHK-1; 15-CV-01131-LHK

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO ANSWER

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE JUAN PUGA,

Petitioner-Defendant.

Case Nos. 12-CR-00387-LHK-1

 15-CV-01131-LHK

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT 

TO ANSWER

On September 11, 2013, petitioner Jose Juan Puga (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

841(b)(1)(A)(viii). ECF No. 28.1 Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, Petitioner’s prior felony drug 

conviction meant that his guilty plea carried a mandatory minimum prison sentence of twenty 

years. Id. at 2.

On February 26, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, ten years 

of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100.00. ECF No. 39. Judgment was entered 

on February 28, 2014. ECF No. 41. Petitioner did not appeal.

 

1 All ECF references are from the docket of No. 12-CR-00387.

Case 5:15-cv-01131-LHK Document 2 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case Nos. 12-CR-00387-LHK-1; 15-CV-01131-LHK

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO ANSWER

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

Northern District of California

On March 11, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 47. In his motion, Petitioner argues that his counsel’s 

ineffective assistance rendered Petitioner’s guilty plea involuntary. ECF No. 48 at 4-6. 

Specifically, Petitioner says he “was not adequately advised of the consequences of the plea 

because he labored under a material misapprehension of the manner in which the Section 851 

enhancement is administered.” Id. at 5. Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of his § 2255

motion. ECF No. 50-1.

The Court hereby ORDERS Respondent to file an answer to Petitioner’s § 2255 motion

not exceeding ten (10) pages in length by July 24, 2015. Petitioner may file a reply not exceeding 

ten (10) pages in length by August 21, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01131-LHK Document 2 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2