Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02165/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02165-0/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 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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 

SONYA PRATT, 

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT SENTENCE 

 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Sonya Pratt’s (“Petitioner”) motion to vacate, 

set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 35.) The Court 

has fully considered this matter, including a review of Petitioner’s brief and the authorities 

cited therein. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 On December 9, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to importation of 100 grams or more of 

heroin and importation of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of Title 21 

U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. (Doc. No. 28 at 3.)1

 Petitioner was sentenced to sixty (60) months 

in custody and three (3) years of supervised release. (Doc. No. 34.) 

                                                                

1

 All docket citations are in reference to case number 14CR3308. Page numbers are in reference to the 

automatically generated CM/ECF page numbers and not the page numbers on the original document. 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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 facts leading up to Petitioner’s arrest and subsequent guilty plea are as follows. 

On September 30, 2014, Petitioner applied for entry into the United States from Mexico at 

the San Ysidro, California, Port of Entry. (Doc. No. 28 at 3.) Petitioner was driving a Kia 

Sportage with her two minor daughters, ages eleven and fifteen, in the car. (Id.) The 

Customs and Border Protection officer inquired if Petitioner had anything to declare, to 

which Petitioner answered no. (Id.) Noticing that Petitioner was exhibiting signs of 

nervousness, the officer conducted an inspection of the vehicle and found signs of 

tampering on the undercarriage of the passenger side. (Id.) The combination of these events 

led the officer to refer the vehicle to the secondary lot for more intensive examination. (Id.) 

 At the secondary lot, the vehicle was screened by a narcotic detector dog. (Id.) The 

dog alerted the officers to a narcotic odor emanating from beneath the rear seat. (Id.) After, 

further inspection, a non-factory compartment was found under the backseat that contained 

eleven concealed packages. (Id.) Field tests of the contents of the packages revealed that 

ten of the packages contained methamphetamine, weighing 7.40 kilograms, and one 

package contained heroin, weighing .94 kilograms. (Id.) 

 The case agent noted that during questioning, Petitioner stated that she drove the 

vehicle every day and that there was only one set of keys for the vehicle. (Id. at 4.) 

Petitioner also claimed that the vehicle was recently in the shop. (Id.) During further 

questioning, Petitioner eventually told agents that she wanted to wait for a lawyer before 

making any more statements. (Id.) 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On December 9, 2014, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Petitioner pled guilty 

to a single count information charging Petitioner with violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 

and 960. (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner waived “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.” (Id.

at 11-12.) Petitioner further agreed to waive “any right to appeal or to collaterally attack 

the sentence unless the Court: (1) denies defendant’s request for a minor role reduction 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 8
3 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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

pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2(b), in which case defendant may only appeal the denial of minor 

role . . .” (Id. at 12.) The plea agreement further stated that “[Petitioner] has fully discussed 

the facts of this case with defense counsel” and “admits that there is a factual basis for this 

guilty plea.” (Id. at 3-4.) 

 On February 24, 2015, Judge Battaglia sentenced Petitioner to sixty (60) months in 

prison and three (3) years of supervised release. (Doc. No. 34.) For sentencing, the presentence report provided by Chelsea Johnson, the U.S. Probation officer assigned to the 

case, set Petitioner’s base offense level at thirty-four (34). (Doc. No. 28 at 5.) A two (2) 

level upward adjustment was then applied pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(5) as the offense 

involved the importation of methamphetamine. (Id.) The report notes that Petitioner had 

more than one criminal history point and thus did not meet all the criteria under USSG § 

5C1.2. (Id.) Petitioner then received a downward adjustment of two (2) and one (1) for 

acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1(a), and for assisting authorities in the 

investigation or prosecution of Petitioner’s own misconduct by timely notifying authorities 

of the intention to enter a plea of guilty under USSG § 3E1.1(b). (Id.) No adjustment for 

role in the offense was made as the pre-sentence report states that only minimal information 

was known about Petitioner’s involvement in the case. (Id.) According to the case agent, 

Petitioner did not discuss her role in the offense at the time of her arrest, and did not discuss 

the offense during the presentence interview on the advice of counsel. (Id.) The presentence report thus set Petitioner’s total offense level to a thirty-three (33). (Id.) The presentence report recommended that Petitioner serve ninety-six (96) months in custody with 

four (4) years of supervised release. (Id. at 16.) 

 On August 26, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate, correct, or set aside 

her sentence based on her alleged “minor role” in the offense. (Doc. No. 35 at 1.) The 

government did not file an opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 A federal prisoner in custody under sentence may move the court that imposed the 

sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence if “the sentence was imposed in 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 8
4 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To 

warrant relief under § 2255, a prisoner must allege a constitutional, jurisdictional, or 

otherwise “fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice 

[or] an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” United 

States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783 (1979). If it is clear the movant has failed to state a 

claim, or has “no more than conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts and refuted by 

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

United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). “Errors of law which might 

require reversal of a conviction or sentence on appeal do not necessarily provide a basis 

for relief under § 2255.” United States v. Wilcox, 640 F.2d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 1981). 

DISCUSSION 

 Here, because Petitioner’s plea agreement expressly contained a waiver of her right 

to appeal or collaterally attack her sentence, Petitioner bases her 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) 

motion on the contention that Petitioner should have receive a downward adjustment for 

her alleged minor role in the offense pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2. (Doc. No. 35 at 1-2.) 

 USSG § 3B1.2 directs the court to decrease the offense level in two circumstances: 

(1) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by four 

levels; and (2) if the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease 

by two levels. U.S.S.G § 3B1.2. 

 In support of her motion, Petitioner cites to United States v. Quintero-Leyva and 

Amendment 794, which provided five factors courts should use to determine whether a 

defendant should be granted a minor role reduction. United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 

F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). In addition, Petitioner claims that she had “no role in setting 

up the deal, no role in negotiating the price of the drugs, and no knowledge of where the 

drugs were going.” (Doc. No. 35 at 2.) Furthermore, Petitioner avers that she did not have 

the name of the person who owned the drugs as she was recruited into the conspiracy as an 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 8
5 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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

“ordinary member with a very limited role of the typical courier.” (Id.) 

 Unfortunately, for Petitioner, Amendment 794 is inapplicable to the present matter 

as Petitioner’s sentence of sixty (60) months in custody is the mandatory minimum term 

of imprisonment for her crimes to which she pled guilty. 21 U.S.C. § 952; 21 U.S.C. § 

960(b)(2). (Doc. No. 27.) Under § 960(b)(2) the statutory minimum term of imprisonment 

for Petitioner’s crime is not less than five years, and not more than a maximum of forty 

years. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(2). A defendant is subject to relief from the mandatory minimum 

sentence under USSG § 5C1.2, which states that a court can “impose a sentence in 

accordance with the applicable guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum 

sentence” if a defendant satisfies five criteria: (1) the defendant does not have more than 1 

criminal history point . . . ; (2) the defendant did not use violence . . . ; (3) the offense did 

not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person; (4) the defendant was not an 

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense . . . ; and (5) not later than 

the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government 

all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses . . . 

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). Regrettably, Petitioner has more than one criminal history 

point, 2 and thus does not meet all the criteria under USSG § 5C1.2. As a result, when the 

Court sentenced Petitioner to sixty (60) months3

 in prison, the Court was unable to deviate 

from the mandatory minimum sentence provided by 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(2). Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s request for a minor role reduction is unfeasible. 

 Even if Petitioner was not subject to the mandatory minimum sentence, Petitioner’s 

motion would fail on the merits. First, Petitioner’s motion is untimely under § 2255. Such 

a motion must be brought within one year of: (1) the date on which the judgment of 

conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created 

                                                                

2

 Petitioner was charged with a variety of offenses in 1998, 2004, 2005, and 2006. (Doc. No. 28 at 6-8). 

3

 The Court highlights that Petitioner’s sentencing memorandum, submitted by her attorney at the time, 

Anthony E. Colombo Jr., asked the Court to impose the same sentence of sixty (60) months in custody. 

(Doc. No. 30 at 7-8.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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

by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed . . . ; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the 

Supreme Court . . . ; 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). Petitioner’s judgment was final on December 9, 2014, almost two years before she 

filed the present motion on August 26, 2016. (Doc. No. 28 at 3; Doc. No. 35.) In addition, 

Amendment 794, cited by Petitioner to support her claim is not the “type of event that 

restarts the clock for the § 2255 statute of limitations.” See United States v. Valencia, Case 

Nos. 13-CR-6029-EFS, 4:16-CV-5107-EFS, 2016 WL 4491848, at *2 (E.D. Wa. Aug. 25, 

2016); see also United States v. Yanez, Case Nos. 13cr3515-LAB-1, 16cv1964-LAB, 2016 

WL 4248541, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is 

untimely. 

 Next, it is notable to establish that Petitioner is not arguing that her sentence was 

imposed in violation of U.S. law or was illegal when imposed. Instead, Petitioner is 

claiming that she should be given the retroactive benefit of Amendment 794. QuinteroLeyva, 823 F.3d at 523. (Doc. No. 35 at 5.) This type of claim should be brought under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582 and not § 2255. See Hamilton v. United States, 67 F.3d 761, 763 (9th Cir. 

1995) (holding that a § 2255 claim can be based only on a claim of constitutional error, an 

error resulting in a “complete miscarriage of justice,” or a “proceeding inconsistent with 

the rudimentary demands of fair procedure”) (citing Timmreck, 441 U.S. at 783–84). 

 Nevertheless, even if Petitioner’s motion were properly brought under § 2255 the 

Court notes that at the time of sentencing, Petitioner provided the Court with no 

information regarding her role in the offense. (Doc. No. 28 at 5.) Petitioner now claims that 

her role in the conspiracy was less culpable and thus she should be granted a downward 

departure for minor role. (Doc. No. 35 at 1.) Specifically, Petitioner argues in her motion 

that as she did not receive an “enhancement under the leader/organizer/managerial 

provision” that she is thus deserving of a “reduction of sentence for her minimal 

participation.” (Id. at 4.) However, Petitioner is not entitled to a minor role adjustment 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 6 of 8
7 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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

“merely because [she] is not a leader or organizer and is less culpable than other 

participants.” See United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (no minor role 

adjustment for drug courier despite defendant stating that he was a “one time drug courier” 

and exhibited a “total lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the 

enterprise”); see also United States v. Acosta, 176 F. App’x 755, 756 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(finding that defendant’s assertion that he was a mere courier did not entitle defendant to a 

minor role adjustment). Finally, Courts have recognized that possession of a substantial 

amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction. See United States 

v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 557–58 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 Lastly, Petitioner bears the burden of proving the applicability of a minor role 

adjustment by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 

1436 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Sanchez, 908 F.2d 1443, 1449 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

The district court’s task is to compare Petitioner’s conduct, including relevant conduct, to 

that of other co-participants in the scheme. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 

1283 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Petitioner only provides the Court with brief and conclusory 

statements to support her contention that she played a “limited” role in the conspiracy. 

(Doc. No. 35 at 2.) Thus, even if Petitioner properly brought this motion under § 2255, 

because Petitioner has not met her burden, the Court would be unable to use the five factors 

provided by Quintero-Leyva and Amendment 794 to determine whether Petitioner qualifies 

for a minor role reduction. 

 Accordingly, in light of the applicable legal principles, the limited evidence before 

the Court, and the factors explained above, the Court finds that Petitioner was properly 

sentenced to sixty (60) months in custody pursuant to the mandatory minimum sentence 

established by 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(2) and that a downward adjustment for minor role is 

inappropriate in the instant matter. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

16CV2165, 14CR3308-AJB 

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

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, 

or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: November 30, 2016 

 

Case 3:16-cv-02165-AJB Document 2 Filed 12/01/16 Page 8 of 8