Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02006/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02006-0/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,

Criminal Case No. 3:12cr988-MMA

[Related Civil Case No. 3:12cv2006-

MMA]

vs.

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

REDUCTION OF TIME IN CUSTODY

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

[Doc. No. 26]

ABRAHAM HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

On March 29, 2012, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant Abraham HernandezMartinez pleaded guilty to a single count Information for importing approximately 5.18 kilograms

(11.40 pounds) of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, a

Schedule II Controlled Substance, into the United States from a place outside thereof, in violation of

Title 21 of the United States Code, sections 952 and 960. See Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 14. The

Court sentenced Defendant on July 30, 2012, to 30 months imprisonment, 5 years of supervised

release, no fine, and a $100 penalty assessment. See Judgment, Doc. No. 25. Defendant has filed a

pre-typed, form motion, requesting the Court reduce his time in federal custody pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that (1) his imprisonment time is harsher as a non-citizen in violation of his

constitutional rights, and (2) a 1995 United States Attorney General Memorandum allows a one to

two level downward departure from the applicable guideline sentencing range in return for an alien’s

- 1 - 12cr988/12cv2006

Case 3:12-cv-02006-MMA Document 2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3
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

concession of deportability and agreement to accept a final order of deportation. For the following

reasons, the Court summarily DISMISSES the motion.

DISCUSSION

Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2255 provides that if a defendant’s motion, file,

and records “conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief” the Court summarily may

dismiss the motion without sending it to the United States Attorney for response. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255(b). The rules regarding Section 2255 proceedings similarly state that the Court summarily

may order dismissal of a 2255 motion without service upon the United States Attorney only “[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior

proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief . . .”. Rule 4(a), RULES-SECTION 2255

PROCEEDINGS (West 2009).1

 Thus, when a movant fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, or when the motion is incredible or patently frivolous, the district court may summarily

dismiss the motion. Cf. United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989); Marrow v.

United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985). 

A defendant may waive his right to file a section 2255 motion to challenge his sentence, but

such a waiver must so state expressly. United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Defendant’s plea agreement states in part:

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

waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the

conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the Court imposes a

custodial sentence above the greater of the high end of the guideline range

recommended by the Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing

or statutory mandatory minimum term, if applicable. 

See Doc. No. 14, 10. The Ninth Circuit approves of such waivers on public policy grounds,

reasoning that finality is “perhaps the most important benefit of plea bargaining.” United States v.

1

 Similarly, a court deciding a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if “the

motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). 

“Mere conclusory statements by the petitioner do not justify a hearing.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (1982). 

Instead, a defendant must make “specific factual allegations which, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Id. As discussed

below, Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts showing a possible right to relief. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing

is not warranted in this case.

- 2 - 12cr988/12cv2006

Case 3:12-cv-02006-MMA Document 2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3
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

Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts will generally enforce a defendant’s

waiver of his right to appeal if: (1) “the language of the waiver encompasses the defendant’s right to

appeal on the grounds claimed on appeal,” and (2) “the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made.” 

United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court concludes that both

of these requirements are met in this case. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is barred and must be

dismissed because of his plea agreement waiver. 

Even if Defendant had not waived his right to attack his conviction and sentence, his motion

would fail on the merits. Defendant argues that, as a result of his deportable alien status, he has

been unable to participate in programs that would entitle him to early release in violation of the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected

this argument in McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999). There, the court held,

“[E]xcluding prisoners with detainers from participating in community-based treatment programs,

and consequently from sentence reduction eligibility, is at least rationally related to the BOP’s

legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from fleeing detainers while participating in community

treatment programs.” Id. at 1176. Additionally, Defendant’s argument that the Court could depart

downward because he is a deportable alien is precluded by statute and current Ninth Circuit case

law. By statute, the Court may depart downward only if there are “aggravating or mitigating

circumstances . . . not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission.” 18

U.S.C. § 3553(b). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit has held that the threat of deportation is not a

factor that the district court may consider for sentencing purposes. United States v.

Alvarez-Cardenas, 902 F.2d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 1990). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s motion for

reduction of time in custody. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cr988/12cv2006

Case 3:12-cv-02006-MMA Document 2 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3