Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00343/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00343-0/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. 15cr2310WQHCIVIL CASE NO. 18cv343WQH

ORDER

 v.

DANIEL PORTLEY-HANKS (6), Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

This matter before the Court is Defendant’s Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255. (ECF No. 863). 

On December 27, 2016,Defendant entered a plea of guilty to an Information

charging him with a single Count of Hobbs Act Extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1951. The guilty plea was entered pursuant to a written plea agreement between the

Defendant and the Plaintiff United States. (ECF No. 536). The plea stated that “the

crime to which defendant is pleading carries the following penalties: A. a maximum

of twenty years in prison...” Id. at 4. Defendant appeared before the Magistrate Judge

and entered his plea. The Magistrate Judge found the plea was knowing and voluntary. 

This Court accepted the plea. (ECF No. 573). 

On February 7, 2017, the probation office prepared a presentence report. The

report concluded that the total offense level was 17 and the Criminal History Score was

I, resulting in an applicable sentencing guideline range of 24-30 months. (ECF No.

606). 

On July 24, 2017, this Court held a sentencing hearing and entered a judgment

sentencing the Defendant to be imprisoned for a term of 16 months in the custody of

- 1 -

Case 3:18-cv-00343-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

the Bureau of Prisons. (ECF No. 743). 

On February 13, 2018, Petitioner, filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 863). Petitioner alleged that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel on the grounds that (1) the failure of his to

advise him that working with the prosecution in the pre-trial and plea bargaining phase

caused him prejudice, and 2) his counsel failed to secure a two level reduction for

safety valve. The Government opposes the motion on the grounds that defense

counsel’s performance was well within the bounds of prevailing norms and that

Defendant suffered no prejudice from any aspect of the representation of his counsel.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner 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 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.” 

RULING OF THE COURT 

Waiver of Appeal

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the plea agreement, the

Defendant waived “to the full extent of the law, any 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. The defendant

also knowingly and voluntarily waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal

or to collaterally attack his sentence, except a post-conviction collateral attack based

on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the Court imposes a custodial

sentence above the total statutory maximum for the offense of conviction.” (ECF No.

536 at 11). This waiver is clear, express and unequivocal. Plea agreements are

- 2 -

Case 3:18-cv-00343-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally be enforced if the

agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo, 298 F.3d

1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The Court imposed a sentence of 16 months. This sentence was not “above the

total statutory maximum for the offense of conviction” of twenty years. (ECF No. 536

at 11). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant waived his right to

collaterally attack the sentence imposed “except a post-conviction collateral attack

based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. 

Ineffective assistance of Counsel 

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must

show that representation of counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,

and that any deficiencies in counsel’s performance were prejudicial. See Strickland 

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 690 (1984). Both deficient performance and prejudice

are required before it can be said that a conviction or sentence resulted from a

breakdown in the adversary process that rendered the result of the proceeding

unreliable and thus in violation of the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Thomas,

417 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 2005). To prevail on the prejudice prong of a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that there is “a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the results of the proceedings

would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 69. 

In this case, Defendant asserts that his counsel failed to object to information in

the presentence report and failed to secure a two level reduction for safety valve. 

Defendant has not identified any information that defense counsel failed to bring to the

attention of the Court at the time of sentencing. The Court confirmed that the defense

counsel had reviewed the presentence report with the Defendant. Defendant was given

an opportunity to address the Court and did not identify any complaints with the

presentence report or with his representation. The sentence of 16 months imposed by

- 3 -

Case 3:18-cv-00343-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

the Court was under the applicable sentencing guidelines range of 24-30 months and

took into consideration all facts set forth by all parties.1

 

The Court concludes that the performance of defense counsel was well within

the bounds of prevailing professional norms and that Defendant has demonstrated no

prejudice from any aspect of the representation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 (ECF No. 863) is denied. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff

United States and against Defendant.

DATED: May 4, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

1

Even with two points for safety valve, the total offense level would have been

15 and the applicable sentencing guideline range 18-24 months. 

- 4 -

Case 3:18-cv-00343-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4