Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00537/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00537-0/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 

FILED 

OCT 2 6 2018 

CLERK. IJ.S. OISTR•CT COURT 

SOUTHERN D1STR1CT O~ CALIFORNIA 

BY ----· ···-----·-".fPUTY 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 EV A MADUENO, 

12 Movant, 

13 v. 

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

15 Respondent. 

16 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00537-BEN 

3:13-cr-04513-BEN 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 

u.s.c. § 2255 

17 Movant, Eva Madueno, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

18 Correct her Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Respondent, the United States ("the 

19 government"), filed a response, opposing the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the 

20 Court DENIES Movant's Motion. 

21 BACKGROUND 

22 On December 19, 2013, the government filed a one-count indictment charging 

23 Movant with violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 84l(a)(l), 84l(b)(l)(A)(vii) and 846, Conspiracy 

24 to Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances, and 21 U.S.C. § 853, Criminal 

25 Forfeiture. 1 (Doc. No. 1.) Movant entered into a plea agreement with the government, in 

26 

27 

28 1 All docket citations refer to the criminal case docket, No. 13-cr-04513-BEN-1. 

3:16-cv-00537-BEN 

3: 13-cr-04513-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-00537-BEN Document 2 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1 which she "waive[ d], to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally 

2 attack the conviction and sentence, including any restitution order." (Doc. No. 49 at 8-9.) 

3 Movant thereafter pleaded guilty and came before this Court for sentencing. (Doc. Nos. 50, 

4 56.) 

5 The parties agreed to jointly recommend Movant's sentencing be based on the 

6 following U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Base Offense Level, Specific Offense 

7 Characteristics, Adjustments, and Departures: 

8 

9 

10 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Base Offense Level [USSG § 2Dl.l(c)(l 1)] 

Drugs into Jail [USSG § 2Dl.l(b)(4)] 

Acceptance of Responsibility [USSG § 3El. l] 

26 

+2 

-3 

11 (Doc. No. 58 at 16.) At sentencing, the government complied with the plea agreement by 

12 recommending the above Guideline calculations. (Doc. No. 64.) The government further 

13 determined that these calculations produced an Adjusted Offense Level of 25, which in 

14 combination with Movant's Criminal History Category of VI, produced a Guideline Range 

15 of 110 to 13 7 months' custody. (Id.) The government additionally recommended a 

16 downward variance that was equivalent to a 2-level reduction in the Base Offense Level in 

17 exchange for Movant's agreement not to seek a further reduced sentence in the event the 

18 Federal Sentencing Guidelines were amended on November 1, 2014, to revise the Drug 

19 Quantity Table in USSG § 2Dl.l(c). (Id.) This reduced the Guideline range to 92 to 115 

20 months' custody. (Id.) The government then recommended Movant receive a sentence of 

21 92 months' custody. (Id.) 

22 On February 29, 2016, Movant filed the instant motion. (Doc. No. 73.) While it is 

23 not entirely clear from her motion, Movant appears to allege (1) that she was sentenced as 

24 a "career offender" in violation of her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the 

25 United States' Constitution, and (2) that she received ineffective assistance of counsel 

26 because her defense attorney "failed to file an appeal on her behalf." (Id. at 6.) In essence, 

27 Movant contends she is entitled to a reduced sentence pursuant to the Supreme Court's 

28 

2 

3:16-cv-00537-BEN 

3: 13-cr-04513-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-00537-BEN Document 2 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
1 decisions in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, 

2 163 S. Ct. 1257 (2016). 

3 LEGAL STANDARD2 

4 Under § 2255, a movant is entitled to relief if the sentence: (1) was imposed in 

5 violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) was given by a court 

6 without jurisdiction to do so; (3) was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by 

7 law; or ( 4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. 

8 Speelman, 431F.3d1226, 1230 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). Ifit is clear the movant has failed to 

9 state a claim, or has "no more than conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts and refuted 

10 by the record," a district court may deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. 

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

12 DISCUSSION 

13 Movant's motion fails on several grounds. First, she validly waived her right to 

14 collaterally attack her sentence. The record discloses no issues as to the voluntariness of 

15 Movant's plea. Second, the Movant's motion is untimely as it was filed fifteen months 

16 after her conviction became final. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 

17 1996 ("AEDPA") instituted a one-year limitation for both state and federal prisoners to 

18 collaterally attack their sentences. Moreover, Movant failed to justify the untimeliness of 

19 her motion. 

20 Third, contrary to her contentions, Movant's sentence was not unconstitutionally " 

21 enhanced under Johnson or Welch. In Johnson, the Supreme Court considered language 

22 in the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"). The ACCA imposes a mandatory minimum 

23 sentence of 15 years for a defendant who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and "has three 

24 previous convictions by any court ... for a violent felony or serious drug offense, or both." 

25 18 U.S.C. § 924( e )(1 ). The Supreme Court examined the definition of "violent felony" 

26 

27 

28 2 The Court determines there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. 

3 

3:16-cv-00537-BEN 

3:13-cr-04513-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-00537-BEN Document 2 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1 and held that a portion of that definition known as the "residual clause" is void for 

2 vagueness. Imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause definition of"violent 

3 felony" violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process. 135 S. Ct. at 2563. The 

4 Supreme Court expressly confined its holding to this particular portion of the statute and 

5 confirmed that its holding does not apply to the "serious drug offense" clause or the 

6 remainder of the "violent felony" definition. (Id.) 

7 In Welch, the Supreme Court considered whether Johnson was a substantive decision 

8 that is retroactive in cases on collateral review, 194 S. Ct. at 1261, and concluded that it 

9 was. (Id. at 1265.) 

10 However, neither Johnson nor Welch are applicable because Movant was not 

11 sentenced under the residual clause of the violent felony definition of the ACCA. See 

12 United States v. Ruiz-Diaz, 668 F. App'x 289, 290 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Because the 

13 [sentencing] enhancement was not predicated on a residual clause like the one struck down 

14 in Johnson, there is no arguable issue as to whether [defendant's] sentence is illegal."). 

15 Rather, she was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 841and846 and USSG 2Dl.1, which 

16 were not implicated by Johnson. See United States v. Padilla, No. 2:10-CR-00454-CAS, 

17 2017 WL 962756, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) (finding Johnson inapplicable to 

18 petitioner's § 2255 petition because petitioner's "sentence was not based upon any 

19 guidelines that might have been implicated by Johnson."). 

20 Movant's motion may be construed as challenging the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

21 as unconstitutionally vague based on the same reasoning as Johnson. 3 (See generally , 

22 Docket 73) (asserting her prior offenses fell within the "Residual Clause" discussed in 

23 Johnson and thus the Court should now modify her sentence under the Guidelines without 

24 considering those prior offenses.) However, the Supreme Court rejected such an argument 

25 

26 

27 3 Movant's motion is not entirely coherent, but this inference of an underlying challenge 

to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines constitutes the Court's best effort to understand her 28 arguments. 

4 

3:16-cv-00537-BEN 

3:13-cr-04513-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-00537-BEN Document 2 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1 in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 {2017), holding that the federal sentencing 

2 guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the due process clause. (Id. at 890, 

3 892, 895.) 

4 Fourth, Movant contends her counsel "failed to file an appeal on her behalf." The 

5 allegation fails to identify what was requested of her attorney or whether she actually even 

6 discussed the issue with him. More importantly, it would not be ineffective assistance for 

7 her attorney to not appeal, where the defendant has validly waived her right to appeal. 

8 Here, Movant waived her right to appeal as part of her plea bargain. And after the Court 

9 pronounced sentence, Movant again waived her appeal rights in open court. (Doc. No. 72 

10 at 16-17.) 

11 Therefore, there are no arguable grounds as to whether Movant's sentence is illegal, 

12 the Court enforces the collateral attack waiver. Ruiz-Diaz, 668 F. App'x at 290 (citing 

13 United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009)). Alternatively, Movant's 

14 motion is denied on the merits. 

15 CONCLUSION 

16 The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED. 

17 A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 

18 "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," and reasonable jurists could 

19 debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 

20 presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

21 322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 

22 certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

ITEZ 

nited States District Court Judge 

3:16-cv-00537-BEN 

3:13-cr-04513-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-00537-BEN Document 2 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5