Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01853/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01853-0/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. 12cr0442 JM

CIVIL NO. 13cv1853 JM

ORDER DENYING MOTION

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. 2255

vs.

ISRAEL MARTINEZ ARIZA

Defendant.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Israel Martinez Ariza (“Defendant”),

a non-United States citizen, pleaded guilty to one count in the indictment for

importation of 11.65 kilograms of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§952 and 960. On

July 26, 2013 the court sentenced Defendant to 51 months’ custody and three years of

supervised release. On or about August 8, 2013 Defendant filed a motion for a

reduction of the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”). Defendant contendsthat

his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process have been violated

because, as an alien, he is ineligible for a one-year sentence reduction through a drug

program and/or 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,

- 1 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-01853-JM Document 2 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 5
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

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 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 (9thCir. 1993); see United States v. Navarro-Botello, 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 executed a plea agreement 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, atsentencing, the court

imposed a sentence within the recommended guideline range. 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

- 2 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-01853-JM Document 2 Filed 08/14/13 Page 2 of 5
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

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. 

II. The Merits

Defendant’s claim also 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 survivesrational 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.

- 3 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-01853-JM Document 2 Filed 08/14/13 Page 3 of 5
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

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 programeligibility benefits, deportable aliens

are not similarly situated to United States citizens because citizen inmatesmust re-enter

domestic society while deportable inmates are denied that privilege. Patterson-Romo

v. United States, No. 10-CR-3119, 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.

Brionez-Villela, 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 Rodriguez-Palomares, 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.

- 4 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-01853-JM Document 2 Filed 08/14/13 Page 4 of 5
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

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 court denies the Motion to reduce Defendant’s sentence. The Clerk

of Court is instructed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2013

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 5 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-01853-JM Document 2 Filed 08/14/13 Page 5 of 5