Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01651/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01651-0/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 

13cr3309-MMA 

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,

v. 

DANIEL VAZCONES, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 13cr3309-MMA 

Related Case No.: 16cv1651-MMA 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 

[Doc. No. 56] 

 On September 18, 2014, Defendant Daniel Vazcones was charged in a two-count 

Superseding Information with distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, 

United States Code, section 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a 

drug trafficking crime, in violation of Title 18, section 924(c)(1). See Doc. No. 34. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts. See Doc. No. 38. On March 23, 2015, the 

Court sentenced Defendant as a career offender to a term of 180 months in custody. See 

Doc. No. 53. Defendant now collaterally challenges his conviction and sentence pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Doc. No. 56. Defendant raises multiple grounds for relief, 

primarily challenging his classification as a career offender under the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ---, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015), and the passage of California Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

13cr3309-MMA 

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

Schools Act, Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18. Defendant also claims the government 

impermissibly amended the charging document in this case to add the weapons charge, 

and that he received ineffective assistance when his counsel advised him to plead guilty 

to the charges in the Superseding Information.1

 The government filed a response to 

Defendant’s motion, to which Defendant replied. See Doc. Nos. 67, 75. For the reasons 

set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s 2255 motion. 

DISCUSSION2

 

1. Legal Standard 

 If a defendant in a federal criminal case collaterally challenges his conviction or 

sentence, he must do so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 

1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988). Under section 2255, a court may grant relief to a defendant 

who challenges the imposition or length of his incarceration on the ground that: (1) the 

sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the 

court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of 

the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A defendant must allege specific facts that, if true, entitle 

him to relief. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2004); United 

States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 

 The Court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing when the issues can be 

conclusively decided on the basis of the existing record. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see United 

States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing United States v. Hearst, 

638 F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.1980)). The Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing 

                                               

1

 Defendant has also filed a document styled as a “request for reconsideration,” Doc. No. 59, which the 

Court DENIES AS MOOT and construes properly as supplemental documentation in support of his 

2255 motion. 

2

 The Court adopts the factual background as set forth by the government in its response brief. See Doc. 

No. 67 at 3-6. 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

13cr3309-MMA 

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 this case because the motion, on its face, conclusively demonstrates that Defendant is 

not entitled to relief. 

2. Waiver

 Pursuant to the terms of his written plea agreement, as confirmed on the record 

during the change of plea hearing and again during the sentencing hearing, Defendant 

waived his rights to directly appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. See

Doc. No. 38 at 11-12. Therefore, as an initial matter, the government argues that this 

waiver precludes Defendant from seeking collateral relief. However, Defendant retained 

his right to pursue “a post-conviction collateral attack based on a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel.” Id. at 11. Moreover, a waiver cannot bar a claim that relates to 

the validity of the waiver itself. United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 

1993). 

 Here, Defendant brings multiple claims, including a challenge to the validity of his 

plea agreement (and the waivers contained therein) based on ineffective assistance of 

counsel. In the Ninth Circuit, such a claim is not waived. See United States v. Pruitt, 32 

F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994) (expressing doubt that a plea agreement could waive a 

claim that counsel erroneously induced a defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular 

plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 (expressly declining to hold that a waiver 

forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the waiver). The Court 

therefore turns to the government’s assertion that Defendant’s claims are procedurally 

barred based on his failure to file a direct appeal. 

3. Procedural Bar 

 Defendant did not challenge his sentence on direct appeal. As a result, the 

government argues that Defendant’s claims of sentencing error are procedurally barred. 

Generally, on collateral review, an individual may not assert claims of constitutional error 

that were not previously raised before the district court or on direct review. United States 

v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1997). To obtain review of issues at this 

juncture that could have been raised on direct appeal, Defendant must show cause for his 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

13cr3309-MMA 

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

procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the error. Bousley v. United States, 

523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (“Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by 

failing to raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if the defendant 

can first demonstrate either ‘cause’ and actual ‘prejudice,’ or that he is ‘actually 

innocent.’”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 

(1982); United State v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1985). 

In his reply brief, Defendant argues that he is “actually innocent” of the career 

offender enhancement to his sentence. The Supreme Court has opined that “in an 

extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the 

conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even 

in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 

U.S. 478, 496 (1986). Ordinarily, a defendant can only be “actually innocent” of a 

noncapital sentencing enhancement if he is actually innocent of an underlying offenses 

used to enhance the sentence. Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193-92 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Defendant does not claim to be innocent of his prior offenses. 

In the alternative, Defendant contends that he could not have brought his Johnson

claim previously, and he suffered prejudice as a result. Even if the Court accepts this 

assertion, it would not excuse Defendant’s procedural default of his other claims. In any 

event, as discussed below, Defendant’s claims lack merit. 

4. Analysis

 a) Johnson Claim 

 Defendant argues that his prior conviction for domestic battery under California 

Penal Code § 273.5(a) is no longer a “crime of violence” under Johnson for career 

offender purposes, and therefore his sentence was improperly enhanced under Section 

4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. 

 In Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held the residual clause in the 

definition of a “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 

924(e)(2)(B) (“ACCA”), to be unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the Due 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

13cr3309-MMA 

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

Process Clause. 135 S. Ct. at 2557. Defendant was not sentenced under the ACCA’s 

residual clause; he was sentenced based on the career offender enhancement provision of 

the Sentencing Guidelines. Nonetheless, Defendant argues that Johnson’s holding is 

applicable, because the ACCA’s residual clause is identical in language to Section 

4B1.2’s residual clause. However, on March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that 

Johnson’s holding does not extend to the Sentencing Guidelines, in so far as “the 

advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process 

Clause.” Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 197 L. Ed. 2d 145 (2017). Under 

Beckles, “it plainly appears from the face of the motion” that Defendant “is not entitled to 

relief” on this basis. See Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for 

the United States District Courts. As such, Defendant’s Johnson claim fails. 

 b) California Proposition 47 

 Defendant argues that the Court improperly applied the career offender 

enhancement because Defendant’s prior conviction for possession of a controlled 

substance for sale, in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11378(a), no 

longer qualifies as a felony under California Proposition 47. This claim fails for several 

reasons. First, while Proposition 47 amended Health and Safety Code section 11377, 

possession of a controlled substance, it did not amend Section 11378, possession for sale, 

the statute under which Defendant was convicted. See Cal. Pen. Code § 1170.18. 

Second, even if Proposition 47 applied, Defendant’s claim fails under United States v. 

Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016), in which the Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 47 

does not retroactively make a defendant’s felony conviction a misdemeanor for purposes 

of federal law. 

 c) Additional Charge 

 Defendant argues that the government impermissibly amended the Indictment in 

this case to add a felon in possession of a firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

However, Defendant was charged in a Superseding Information with two counts, 

including the felon in possession charge, after waiving his right to prosecution by 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

13cr3309-MMA 

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

indictment. See Doc. Nos. 34, 35. Defendant does not contest the validity of this waiver. 

Defendant’s claim of charging error fails. 

 d) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 Finally, Defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance when counsel 

advised Defendant to plead guilty without informing him of the additional felon in 

possession charge. The record clearly establishes that this claim is without merit. 

Defendant reviewed, initialed, and signed a written plea agreement that clearly set forth 

the nature of his plea, to both counts of the Superseding Indictment, as well as the factual 

basis underlying both counts. See Doc. No. 38. Defendant further attested that “[b]y 

signing this agreement, defendant certifies that defendant has read it (or that it has been 

read to defendant in defendant’s native language). Defendant has discussed the terms of 

this agreement with defense counsel and fully understands its meaning and effect.” Id. at 

14. The magistrate judge confirmed the nature of the plea, its factual basis, and 

Defendant’s knowledge and understanding of the plea, during the plea colloquy that took 

place during the change of plea hearing. See Doc. No. 39. Defendant does not contest 

these facts and does not provide any other basis for his claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. As such, his claim fails. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States 

District Courts provides that “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of 

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A defendant must 

obtain a certificate of appealability before pursuing any appeal from a final order in a 

Section 2255 proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). When the denial of a Section 

2255 motion is based on the merits of the claims in the motion, a district court should 

issue a certificate of appealability only when the appeal presents a “substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The defendant must 

show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the issues should have been resolved 

differently or are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

13cr3309-MMA 

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

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000), quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 

(1983), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Mendez v. 

Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 771 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 The Court has carefully reviewed Defendant’s 2255 motion and considered the 

record as a whole. Because Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right, and because the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not 

debate the denial of Defendant’s motion, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s 2255 motion. The Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is instructed to 

enter judgment in accordance herewith and close the related civil case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 7, 2017 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01651-MMA Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7