Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00415/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00415-0/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

15cr0075 BTM

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

JOSE ESQUEDA-ALFARO,

Movant-Defendant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

Crim. Case No.: 15cr0075 BTM

Civ. Case No.: 16cv415 BTM

ORDER DENYING § 2255 

MOTION AND DENYING A 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Defendant Jose Esqueda-Alfaro has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or 

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons discussed below, 

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2015, pursuant to a Plea Agreement, Defendant tendered a 

plea of guilty to Count One of the Information (attempted reentry of removed alien 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)). In an order dated March 18, 2015, the 

Court accepted Defendant’s plea of guilty.

On April 24, 2015, Defendant was sentenced to a 48-month term of 

imprisonment. 

On May 4, 2015, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal.

On November 5, 2015, the Ninth Circuit granted Defendant’s motion for 

voluntarily dismissal of his appeal.

Case 3:16-cv-00415-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 5
2

15cr0075 BTM

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

On February 16, 2016, Defendant filed the instant § 2255 motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced because he received 

a 16-point enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), even though his 

convictions were over ten years old.1 According to Defendant, convictions over 

ten years old cannot be used to enhance sentences under federal law. Defendant 

is incorrect.

Effective November 1, 2011, § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) was amended to read:

If the defendant previously was deported, or unlawfully remained 

in the United States, after—

(A) a conviction for a felony that is (i) a drug trafficking 

offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 

months; (ii) a crime of violence; (iii) a firearms offense; (iv) 

a child pornography offense; (v) a national security or 

terrorism offense; (vi) a human trafficking offense; or (vii) 

an alien smuggling offense, increase by 16 levels if the 

conviction receives criminal history points under Chapter 

Four or by 12 levels if the conviction does not receive 

criminal history points;

Appendix C, amendment 754 (emphasis added).

For purposes of calculating criminal history, the Guidelines explain:

Any prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one 

month that was imposed within fifteen years of the defendant's 

commencement of the instant offense is counted. Also count any 

prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one 

month, whenever imposed, that resulted in the defendant being 

incarcerated during any part of such fifteen-year period.

 

1

 According to the Presentence Report, in 1996, Defendant was convicted of Assault with a Deadly 

Weapon, a crime of violence, and in 1999, was convicted of Possession of Methamphetamine for Sale, a drug 

trafficking offense. 

Case 3:16-cv-00415-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 5
3

15cr0075 BTM

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

USSG § 4A1.2(e)(1) (emphasis added).

The amendment to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) was in response “to case law and public 

comment regarding the magnitude of the enhancement when a defendant’s 

predicate conviction does not receive criminal history points.” Commentary to 

amendment 754. Under amendment 754, “defendants with predicate offenses that 

qualify for an enhancement under subsections (b)(1)(A) and (b) continue to receive 

an enhancement, regardless of whether the prior convictions receive criminal 

history points under Chapter Four.” Id. In contrast, “[o]ther provisions in the 

guidelines exclude consideration of a predicate conviction because of the age of 

the predicate conviction.” Id. 

Thus, the Sentencing Commission specifically considered the issue of the 

age of predicate convictions and enhancements under § 2L1.2b(b)(1)(A), and 

determined that if a prior conviction does not receive criminal history points under 

chapter Four, the enhancement is reduced to 12 levels. Defendant’s prior 

convictions receive criminal history points because they resulted in sentences 

exceeding one year and one month, and resulted in Defendant being incarcerated 

until July 12, 2004 (within 15 years of the instant offense). Therefore, Defendant 

properly received a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). 

Defendant makes conclusory allegations of unconstitutional vagueness and 

violations of due process. Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) clearly delineates which 

convictions support a 16-level enhancement as opposed to a 12-level 

enhancement, and is not unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, the application of 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) does not violate Defendant’s due process rights. 

In addition to the fact that Defendant’s arguments fail on the merits, 

Defendant’s collateral attack is also barred by the Plea Agreement. The Plea 

Agreement provides:

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the plea 

agreement, defendant waives, to the full extent of the law, any 

Case 3:16-cv-00415-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 5
4

15cr0075 BTM

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

right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and any 

lawful restitution order, except a post-conviction collateral attack 

based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the 

Court imposes a custodial sentence above the high end of the 

guideline range (pursuant to USSG § 5G1.1) recommended by 

the Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of 

sentencing. . . . If defendant believes the Government’s 

recommendation is not in accord with this plea agreement, 

defendant will object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the 

objection will be deemed waived.

(Plea Agreement § XI.) 

The Government recommended a sentence of 63 months and 3 years of 

supervised release, which was based on an adjusted offense level of 19 that 

included the downward departures for Acceptance of Responsibility and Fast 

Track set forth in the Plea Agreement. (Plea Agreement § 10.) The Plea 

Agreement specifically provided that the parties were free to argue for the 

applicability of any Specific Offense Characteristic pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b), 

at the time of sentencing. (Plea Agreement at footnote 1.) The Plea Agreement 

also provided that there was no agreement as to Criminal History Category. (Plea 

Agreement § X.D.) The Court sentenced Defendant to 48 months.

A waiver of appeal and/or collateral attack of a conviction is enforceable if 

knowingly and voluntarily made. United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 

(9th Cir. 1993). Defendant does not argue that his attorney was ineffective in 

advising him regarding the Plea Agreement or that his plea was otherwise 

unknowing or involuntary. Defendant’s sole argument is that his sentence should 

not have been enhanced due to the age of his convictions.

Accordingly, Defendant’s § 2255 motion is DENIED as barred by the Plea 

Agreement as well as on the merits.

Case 3:16-cv-00415-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 5
5

15cr0075 BTM

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s § 2255 motion is DENIED. 

The Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment 

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-00415-BTM Document 2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 5