Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02041/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02041-0/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. 11cr4140 JM

ORDER DENYING MOTION

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. 2255

vs.

LUIS JAVIER LUNA-JUAREZ,

Defendant.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Luis JavierLuna-Juarez (“Defendant”), a non-United

States citizen, pleaded guilty to a single count Information charging Defendant with Importation of

Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. On March 2, 2012 the court sentenced Defendant

to 30 months’ custody, followed by three years of supervised release. On August 16, 2012 Defendant

filed a motion for a reduction of the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”). Defendant contends

that his right to equal protection of the laws has been violated because, as an alien, he is ineligible for

a one-yearsentence reduction through a drug program and an early release to a halfway house. For the

reasons set forth below, the court summarily dismisses the Motion. 

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 2255 Review

Claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be based on a constitutional error, a

jurisdictional error, a defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or an unfair procedure. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(a); United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84 (1979). Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached

- 1 - 11cr4140 JM

Case 3:12-cv-02041-JM Document 2 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 4
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

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

judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” The court does not

need to hold an evidentiary hearing or obtain a response from the government. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255; United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). 

I. Waiver 

Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. Contract law standards

govern the validity of plea agreements. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir.

1990). A defendant validly waives his appellate rights if the language of the waiver encompasses

his right to appeal on the grounds raised and he knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive those

rights. United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011). A waiver provision barring

a defendant from seeking collateral relief under a § 2255 motion is valid and enforceable. See

United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993); see United States v. NavarroBotello, 912 F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasoning the public policy of finality supports

upholding waivers in plea agreements). Defendant validly waived his right to collaterally attack his

sentence when he signed a plea agreement filed on October 6, 2011, expressly waiving his right to

appeal or to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence unless the court imposed a custodial

sentence greater than the high end of the guidelines range recommended by the government. The

waiver applies because at sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months, lower than the

high end of the government’s recommended guideline range of 46 to 57 months. The record

reveals that Defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, the court dismisses the

Motion. 

II. Procedural Bar 

Even if Defendant did not waive the right to collaterally attack his sentence, he has

procedurally defaulted on his claim. A defendant procedurally defaults on claims that he could

have, but did not raise on appeal. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621-22 (1998).

Defendant did not raise these claims on direct appeal. He does not allege that he is innocent or that

cause and prejudice existed to excuse his procedural default. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,

485 (1996). Accordingly, the court dismisses the Motion. 

- 2 - 11cr4140 JM

Case 3:12-cv-02041-JM Document 2 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 4
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

II. The Merits

Defendant’s claim fails on the merits. An Equal Protection claim arises when a statute, on

its face or when enforced, results in the differential treatment of similarly situated persons due to

discriminatory government intent. United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir.

1995); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). The court must analyze the distinction under the

appropriate level of scrutiny. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp.,

429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). Unless a suspect classification is present, the unequal treatment must

only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.

432, 440 (1985). “The fact that an Act of Congress treats aliens differently from citizens does not

itself imply that such treatment is invidious.” Matthews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 80 (1976). Federal

classifications based on alienage receive rational basis review because Congressional power to

serve national interests in immigration and foreign relations justify selective legislation not

permitted to the states. Id. at 81; see Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365, 377

(1971).

The exclusion of non-citizen inmates from participating in an early-release drug program

survives rational basis scrutiny. See McLean v. Crabtree 173 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) did not violate the equal protection rights of

non-citizen plaintiffs with Immigration and Naturalization Service detainers by denying them a

sentence reduction. The court reasoned that the government distinction between prisoners with

detainers and prisoners without detainers did not create a suspect classification. Id. at 1186.

Excluding prisoners with detainers from community-based treatment programs and sentence

reduction eligibility rationally served the government’s legitimate interest in eliminating the risk of

a prisoner’s escape during the community-based treatment phase. Id. The government did not

violate Defendant’s equal protection rights by denying him the opportunity to participate in an

early-release drug program based on his non-citizen status because of a legitimate interest in

eliminating a risk of flight.

In the context of early-release drug program eligibility benefits, deportable aliens are not

similarly situated to United States citizens because citizen inmates must re-enter domestic society

- 3 - 11cr4140 JM

Case 3:12-cv-02041-JM Document 2 Filed 09/17/12 Page 3 of 4
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

while deportable inmates are denied that privilege. Patterson-Romo v. United States, No. 10-CR3119, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79319, at *3 (denying petitioner’s motion for a reduction of the

sentence); United States v. Avendano, No. 12-CV-1495, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89959, at *6

(denying an identical petition); Ortiz-Castillo v. United States, No. 11-CR-2511, 2012 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 39423, at *5 (denying an identical petition); Rios-Ibarra v. United States, No. 09-CV-205-

JD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10977, at *5 (denying an identical petition); United States v. BrionezVillela, No. 8:12CR73, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85164, at *5 (denying a similar petition).

Defendant is not similarly situated to citizen prisoners who are eligible for early-release drug

program benefits because he will not re-enter domestic society in the United States following

incarceration. 

A challenge to the BOP policy of excluding non-citizens from a sentence reduction option

does not fall within the scope of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Armando RodriguezPalomares, No. 05-CR-1965-JM 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85572, at *6 (denying a motion for a

reduction of the sentence because a downward departure based on deportable alien status is

unavailable under § 2255). The determination of a prisoner’s eligibility for participation in an

early-release drug program rests entirely within BOP discretion and a prisoner has no

constitutionally protected liberty interest in early release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.

Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 243 (2001); Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 670 (9th Cir. 1966).

Defendant does not have a protected liberty interest in early release. He may not challenge the

terms of an early-release drug program eligibility policy under a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

In sum, the Motion to reduce Defendant’s sentence is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is

instructed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 17, 2012

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cr4140 JM

Case 3:12-cv-02041-JM Document 2 Filed 09/17/12 Page 4 of 4