Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02382/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02382-0/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. 11cr5479WQH

CASE NO. 12CV2382WQH

vs. ORDER

CARLOS MADRIGAL-GALLARDO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 40). Defendant moves the court to grant a

downward departure on the following grounds: 1) the Attorney General could offer up to two

points downward departure if the defendant accepts a final deportation order, and 2) he cannot

be housed in a minimum security facility or a Community Correctional Center because of his

deportation status. The Court finds that the issues raised in the petition are appropriate for

summary disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without

jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

- 1 - 11cr5479WQH

Case 3:12-cv-02382-WQH Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 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

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which

imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” A district court must

summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached 

exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.”

Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District courts. 

When this standard is satisfied, neither a hearing nor a response from the government is

required. See Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985).

 RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to

bring a § 2255 motion. In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the plea agreement,

the Defendant waived “to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack

the conviction and any lawful restitution order, except a post-conviction collateral attack based

upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant also waives, to the full extent

of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack his sentence, except a post-conviction

collateral attack based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the Court

imposes a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing, or a mandatory minimum

term, if applicable.” (ECF No. 27 at 10). This waiver is clear, express and unequivocal. Plea

agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally be enforced if the

agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo, 298 F.3d 1149,

1153 (9th Cir. 2005). 

At the time of sentencing, the Government recommended an adjusted offense level of

25 and a resulting guideline range of 57-71 months consistent with the joint recommendation

in the plea agreement. (ECF No. 37). The Government recommended a sentence of 57

months, the low end of the guideline range. (ECF No. 37). The Court imposed a sentence of

51 months. (ECF No. 39 at 2). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant

waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence imposed. 

Finally, the Defendant presents no grounds for relief under Section 2255. The

- 2 - 11cr5479WQH

Case 3:12-cv-02382-WQH Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 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

Sentencing Reform Act gives the Bureau of Prisons the responsibility to “designate the place

of the prisoner’s imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See United States v. Cubillos, 91 F.3d

1342, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected the

assertion that an alien’s equal protection rights are violated when he cannot be housed in a

minimum security facility or a community correction center based upon his deportation status. 

See McClean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, the United

States Attorney General was not required to offer the Defendant a downward departure on the

grounds that he accepted a final deportation order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 40) filed by the Defendant is denied.

DATED: October 5, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cr5479WQH

Case 3:12-cv-02382-WQH Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 3