Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00265/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00265-0/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. 13cr2301-MMA

Related Case No. 14cv265-MMA

ORDER SUMMARILY

DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO VACATE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

[Doc. No. 31]

vs.

CIRILO CAMPOS-IBARRA,

Defendant.

On July 9, 2013, Defendant Cirilo Campos-Ibarra pleaded guilty to one count

of importing methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21 of the United States Code,

sections 952 and 960. See Doc. No. 16. The Court sentenced Defendant on

November 22, 2013, to 37 months imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, and

a $100 special assessment. See Judgment, Doc. No. 30. Defendant now moves the

Court for a reduction of his time in federal custody pursuant to Title 28, section

2255, arguing that (1) his imprisonment time is harsher as a non-citizen in violation

of his constitutional rights; (2) a 1995 United States Attorney General Memorandum

allows a downward departure from the applicable guideline sentencing range in

return for an alien’s concession of deportability and agreement to accept a final

order of deportation; and, (3) the Court failed to consider all relevant sentencing

factors, as required by Title 18, section 3553(a). See Doc. No. 31. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court summarily DISMISSES the motion.

- 1 - 13cr2301

Case 3:14-cv-00265-MMA Document 2 Filed 02/10/14 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

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). 

As an initial matter, Defendant waived his right to appeal or to collaterally

attack his conviction and sentence unless the Court denied Defendant’s request for a

minor role reduction pursuant and imposed a custodial sentence above the greater of

the high end of the guideline range applicable to Adjusted Offense Level 25 at

Defendant’s Criminal History Category as determined by the Court at the time of

sentencing, or the statutory mandatory minimum term, if applicable. See Plea

Agreement, at 11. This waiver provision is enforceable to bar Defendant from

seeking collateral relief because the Court granted Defendant’s request for a minor

role reduction and sentenced Defendant below the applicable guideline range. See

United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979

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 petitioner

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

herein, Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts showing a possible right to relief. Therefore,

an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this case.

- 2 - 13cr2301

Case 3:14-cv-00265-MMA Document 2 Filed 02/10/14 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

(1993). Defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of his waiver. Therefore,

the instant motion is barred and subject to summary dismissal on this basis. 

In any event, Defendant’s motion is plainly without merit. 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, “excluding 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 should have departed

downward because he is a deportable alien is without merit. See United States of

America v. Martinez–Ramos, 184 F.3d 1055, 1056 (9th Cir.1999). Specifically, the

Ninth Circuit has held that the threat of deportation is generally not a factor

appropriately considered for sentencing purposes. United States v.

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

judge does not have the discretion to grant a downward departure solely on the basis

of immigration consequences).

Finally, Defendant contends that the Court failed to consider all relevant

sentencing factors pursuant to Title 18, section 3553(a), in violation of the Supreme

Court’s holdings in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 40 (2007), and Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007). As the court explained in Gall, “after giving both

parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the

district judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether

they support the sentence requested by a party.” 552 U.S. at 49-50. The record

reflects that after the Court calculated the applicable guideline range, it considered

- 3 - 13cr2301

Case 3:14-cv-00265-MMA Document 2 Filed 02/10/14 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 3553(a) factors and made the required “individualized assessment based on the

facts presented.” Id. Defendant’s contention to the contrary is unsupported by the

record and without merit. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s

motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cr2301

Case 3:14-cv-00265-MMA Document 2 Filed 02/10/14 Page 4 of 4