Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01778/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01778-0/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,

CRIM CASE NO. 10cr1472WQH

CIVIL CASE NO. 12cv3015WQH

CIVIL CASE NO. 13cv1778WQH

ORDER

vs.

GREGORIO HERNANDEZDUARTE, 

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,

set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody filed by Defendant. 

(10cr1472WQH, ECF No. 79; 12cv3015WQH, ECF No.1; 13cv1778WQH, ECF No.

1). 

I. Background

On April 5, 2010, Defendant was arrested for alien smuggling. (ECF No. 1 at 3). 

On April 21, 2010, Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy

to transport illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(I), and

two counts of transportation of an illegal alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§

1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II). (ECF No. 15). 

On November 11, 2010, Defendant entered into a Plea Agreement with the

Government. (ECF No. 48). The Plea Agreement provided that “Defendant agree[d]

-1- 10cr1472-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01778-WQH Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 6
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

to plead guilty to Count 1 of the indictment,” and “[t]he Government [would] move to

dismiss the remaining counts in [the] indictment against Defendant after he [was]

sentenced.” Id. at 2. The Plea Agreement stated in part: “Defendant understands that

the crime to which defendant is pleading guilty carries the following penalties: ... As

a consequence of this guilty plea, Defendant may be removed from the United States.” 

Id. at 4.

On November 12, 2010, the Defendant appeared before the District Judge and

entered a plea of guilty to Count 1. At the plea hearing, the District Judge stated: “The

Plea Agreement sets forth the penalties that you are facing, Mr. Hernandez. The

maximum sentence is five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, a $100 special assessment,

and three years’ supervised release, and also you could be removed from the United

States as a result of your guilty plea in this case. Do you understand?” Defendant

answered: “yes.” (ECF No. 83 at 7). The District Judge asked the Defendant “Have

any promises been made to you other than what is in this plea agreement? Any other

promises?” Defendant answered: “No.” Id. at 6-7.

The District Judge asked defense counsel at the plea hearing about the

Defendant’s “status in the United States.” Defendant counsel stated in open court:

“He’s a lawful permanent resident, your honor. ... the fact that he could be removed has

obviously been discussed with him, and all parties both to this agreement and to other

potential agreements in the future are aware of his status and the possibility that he

could be removed.” Id. at 12. 

The District Judge accepted Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1. Pursuant to

the agreement of the parties, Defendant waived preparation of the plea agreement and

both parties requested that the Court impose a sentence of time served. The Court

entered Judgment sentencing Defendant to a term of time served and two years of

supervised release on Count 1. (ECF No. 51 at 1-2). Counts 2 and 3 were dismissed. 

(ECF No. 49). 

On December 19, 2012, Defendant filed the initial motion to vacate, set aside, or

-2- 10cr1472-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01778-WQH Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 6
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

correct sentence. (10cr1472WQH, ECF No. 79; 12cv3015WQH, ECF No.1).

On July 16, 2013, Defendant filed a second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence. (13cv1778WQH, ECF No. 1). 

On September 30, 2013, the Government filed a response. (ECF No. 86). 

II. Contentions of the Parties

Defendant contends that he is entitled to relief from judgment on the ground that

he was denied “effective assistance of counsel.” (ECF No. 79 at 5). Defendant

contends that his counsel “ha[d] a duty to investigate the immigration consequences of

a plea,” and that his “counsel failed to advise [him] on the particular circumstances.” 

Id. Defendant contends that the “conviction [was] obtained by a violation of the

protection against double jeopardy.” Id. Defendant alleges that “there was an

agreement between the District Attorney and Defendant counsel regarding ‘this plea

would not deprive [Defendant of his] lawful permanent residence - which he is in

removal proceedings as a consequence[] of the plea.” Id. 

The Government contends that “[D]efendant’s motion is improper under § 2255,

meritless, and untimely.” (ECF No. 86 at 2). The Government contends that the motion

is untimely because “[D]efendant filed it more than a year after the deadline imposed

by § 2255.” Id. The Government contends that Defendant “is not in federal criminal

custody at this time, and has not been since April 2010[,] ... [and therefore,] he cannot

bring a motion under § 2255.” Id. The Government further asserts that Defendant

“was admonished repeatedly - including by his counsel - that he could be removed from

the United States as a consequence of his guilty plea, and he confirmed under oath to

Judge Gonzalez that he understood that fact.” Id.

III. Analysis

28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides that a “prisoner in custody 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

-3- 10cr1472-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01778-WQH Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 6
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

was in excess of the maximum 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 

A. Statute of Limitations

A motion brought under § 2255 is subject to a one year statute of limitations. 28

U.S.C. § 2255(f). The statute provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.

The limitation period shall run from the latest of–

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; 

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United

States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; 

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or 

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). 

On November 15, 2010, the Court entered Judgment sentencing Defendant to a

term of time served and two years of supervised release. (ECF No. 51).1

 

On December 19, 2012,2

 Defendant filed the initial motion to vacate, set aside,

or correct sentence. (ECF No. 79). Based on the record in this case, the motion to

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is not timely because it was filed more than one

year after “the date on which the judgment of conviction [became] final.” 28 U.S.C. §

2255(f)(1). Defendant has identified no impediment to excuse the late filing.

1

Sentencing was held on November 12, 2010. Judgment was entered on November 15, 2010. Defendant stated at the sentencing hearing that he waived his right to appeal. 

2

Defendant filed a second motion on July 15, 2013 which resulted in 13cv1778. 

-4- 10cr1472-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01778-WQH Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 6
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

B. “In Custody” Requirement

“By its clear terms, § 2255 is applicable only to prisoners who are in custody and

claiming the right to be released.” United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th

Cir. 1999). A term of supervised release has been treated as a sufficient restraint on

liberty as to render a defendant “in custody” for the purposes of a motion under § 2255. 

See United States v. Dohrmann, 36 Fed. Appx. 879, 879 (9th Cir. 2002). Immigration

consequences, including deportation, are collateral consequences of a guilty plea when

the deportation “was not the sentence of the court which accepted the plea, but of

another agency over which the trial judge has no control and for which he has no

responsibility.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Fruchtman v. Kenton,

531 F.2d 946, 949 (9th Cir. 1976) 

On November 15, 2010, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of time served

and two years of supervised release. (ECF No. 51). The record in this case contains no

facts to show that Defendant was “in custody” on December 19, 2012 when he filed his

motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Any subsequent removal proceedings

alleged would be a collateral consequence of Defendant’s guilty plea and conviction,

rather than a restraint on Defendant’s liberty amounting to custody. The record does

not show that Defendant was “a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court” at the

time his petition was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

C. Merits

The plea agreement in this case stated that “ Defendant understands that ... [a]s

a consequence of this guilty plea, Defendant may be removed from the United States.” 

(ECF No. 48 at 4). Defendant initialed this page of the plea agreement and signed the

plea agreement, which expressly stated that “[b]y signing this agreement, Defendant

certifies that Defendant has read it[,] ... has discussed the terms of this agreement with

defense counsel and fully understands its meaning and effect.” Id. at 16. At the change

of plea hearing, Defendant was repeatedly advised that he “could be removed from the

United States as a result of [his] guilty plea.” (ECF No. 83 at 7); see also, (“[T]he fact

-5- 10cr1472-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01778-WQH Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 5 of 6
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

that he could be removed has obviously been discussed with him, and all parties ... are

aware of his status and the possibility that he could be removed.”) Id. at 12. The Court

finds that the record demonstrates that Defendant cannot prevail on a claim that defense

counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Even

if timely filed, the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence on the grounds of

ineffective assistance of counsel fails on the merits.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence (10cr1472WQH ECF No. 79; 12cv3015 ECF No.1; 13cv1778 ECF No. 1)

filed by Defendant are denied.

DATED: December 2, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

-6- 10cr1472-WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01778-WQH Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 6 of 6