Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00820/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00820-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Matias Velazquez, )

 )

Movant, ) No. CV-11-820-PHX-RCB(LOA)

 ) CR-97-361-PHX-RCB

 )

vs. ) O R D E R

 )

United States of America, )

 )

Respondent. )

)

Currently pending before the court is the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence

O. Anderson (“R & R”) (Doc. 18), “find[ing] that Movant

[Matias Velazquez] is entitled to error coram nobis

relief[,]” R & R (Doc. 18) at 18:8-9, to which timely

objections have been filed by the Respondent, the United

States of America (Doc. 19). 

Background

I. Factual

On August 15, 1997, the movant pled guilty in this

federal district court to a one count information charging 

Case 2:11-cv-00820-SMM Document 20 Filed 04/10/13 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

him with conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 286. Resp. (Doc. 10), exhs. 11 and 16

thereto. At sentencing, the court found that the “evidence

reflect[ed] that only $95,121 of the total loss of $285,180

c[ould] be attributed to” the movant. Id., exh. 13 thereto 

at 11, ¶ 2. Therefore, on June 14, 1999, after granting a

downward departure, this court sentenced the movant to four

years of probation. Id., exh. 17 at 27:18-19. 

The movant is a citizen of Mexico who has been a

permanent resident of the United States since November 21,

1989. Id., exh. 18 thereto. Prior to his guilty plea, on

January 17, 1996, the movant completed a Form N-400,

Application for Naturalization, with the assistance of a nonattorney representative from Chicanos Por La Causa. Id. The

movant formally withdrew that Application, however, on April

17, 2002, after determining that his federal guilty plea

rendered him “ineligible” to apply for naturalization. Id.,

exh. 19 thereto. 

On July 26, 2007, well after he had served his four year

sentence of probation, the movant completed a second

naturalization application, with the assistance from American

Beginnings, a Yuma, Arizona organization. Id., exh. 20

thereto. In his September 10, 2008, interview with respect to

that application, the movant disclosed his felony conviction. 

Id., exh. 21 thereto. Determining that conviction to be an

“aggravated felony,” the movant was found to be removable

from the United States. Id. at 57-58. 

Thereafter, on November 8, 2010, the Department of

Case 2:11-cv-00820-SMM Document 20 Filed 04/10/13 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Homeland Security issued a Notice of Appearance charging the

movant with removability based upon his 1999 conviction. 

Id., exh. 22 thereto. That Notice explained that because in

the plea agreement the movant “stipulated that the total loss

to the government attributable to [him] was $95,121.00[,]”

his conviction was an aggregated felony under section

101(a)(43(M) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Id. at

60 and 62. Hence, the movant was deportable on that basis. 

Id. at 62. 

II. Legal

On March 31, 2010, in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356,

130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), the Supreme Court held “that the Sixth

Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to

provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a

guilty plea.” Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133

S.Ct. 1103, 1105 (Feb. 20, 2013). Exactly one year later, on

March 31, 2011, the movant, heavily relying upon Padilla,

filed a “Motion to Vacate Plea of Guilty & Set Aside

Judgement/Motion for Expungement” (Doc. 1). The movant

argued, inter alia, that he was entitled to such relief

because his defense counsel did not properly advise him that

“his deportation was presumptively or ‘virtually’ mandatory.” 

Mot. (Doc. 1) at 5:15 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)). 

Relatedly, the movant further argued that his defense

counsel’s “failure to properly advise [him] of the

immigration consequences” of his guilty plea “constitutes

ineffective assistance of counsel under” Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), Padilla, and

Case 2:11-cv-00820-SMM Document 20 Filed 04/10/13 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005). Id. at

8:18-20. 

In recommending that the movant be granted relief based

upon the writ of error coram nobis, the Magistrate Judge,

like the movant, heavily relied upon Padilla, and he also

relied upon Kwan. In fact, in finding that the “performance”

of movant’s counsel was “deficient[,]” the Magistrate Judge

reasoned that “[u]nder Padilla and Kwan, Movant should have

been advised of the mandatory immigration consequences of his

guilty plea.” R & R (Doc. 18) at 16:28-17:1. More

specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that “[d]efense

counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to research

the relevant immigration law and failing to provide Movant

accurate advice regarding the immigration consequences of his

guilty plea – mandatory deportation.” Id. at 17:5-7. 

Relying upon United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3rd Cir.

2011), as well as lower courts within this Circuit, and

because the parties did not dispute the retroactivity of

Padilla, the Magistrate Judge applied Padilla retroactively. 

See id. at 12:21-28, n.3. 

On February 20, 2013, however, the Supreme Court

abrogated Orocio, and expressly held that Padilla “announced

a ‘new rule,’” and thus under the Court’s retroactivity

analysis, a person whose conviction was final before the 2010

Padilla decision cannot benefit from that new rule. See

Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at 1111. Because it appears that the

movant’s conviction herein was final before the Supreme

Court’s decision in Padilla, and because Padilla is the

Case 2:11-cv-00820-SMM Document 20 Filed 04/10/13 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

primary basis for the movant’s request for relief in this

action, the court hereby ORDERS that:

(1) the movant, Matias Velazquez, shall have twenty

(20) days from the date of entry of this order in which to

file and serve a memorandum of law addressing the impact of

Chaidez v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20,

2013), if any, upon the pending R & R and the United States’

objections thereto:

(2) a response, shall be filed and served in

accordance with LRCiv 7.2 (c); and

(3) a reply, if any, shall be filed and served in

accordance with LRCiv 7.2(d). 

DATED this 10th day of April, 2013.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:11-cv-00820-SMM Document 20 Filed 04/10/13 Page 5 of 5