Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00344/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00344-0/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

05cv344/02cr2860 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HECTOR SALAZAR RUBIO

Defendant-Petititioner.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-344-L

Criminal No. 02-CR-2860-L

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITIONER’S MOTION UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255

Defendant, a prisoner in federal custody proceeding pro se, filed a motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (“petition”)

January 7, 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to Count Two of the Indictment: bringing in

illegal aliens without presentation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii), a Class C felony.

The plea agreement was memorialized in writing and a plea colloquy was placed on the record. 

Defendant was sentenced on May 12, 2003. His sentence included ten months in custody

followed by supervised release for three years. 

A warrant for an Order to Show Cause was issued for defendant alleging that he was

unsuccessfully terminated from Correctional Alternatives, Inc. For consuming alcohol and being

unaccountable for 42.5 hours. On November 15, 2004, defendant admitted to having violated

the terms of his supervised release. Defendant’s supervised release was revoked and he was

sentenced to seven months and 12 days of custody, to be followed by 28 months of supervised

Case 3:05-cv-00344-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 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

1 The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea agreement's stipulations

regarding the sentencing guidelines. Moreover, defendant did not contest the allegations that he

violated supervised release. 

2 05cv344/02cr2860 

release. Defendant has never filed a notice of appeal.

Defendant attacks his sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release

contending that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 in facially unconstitutional. Defendant argues that the Court

impermissibly made findings of relevant sentencing factors not charged in the indictment, not

admitted by Rubio, and not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Waiver of Right to Appeal or Collaterally Attack Sentence

The government contends defendant has waived his right to collaterally attack his

sentence because of the written plea agreement. The plea agreement provides:

In exchange for the United States’ 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 sentence in excess of the high end of the guideline range based on an

adjusted level of 111

. . . . 

(Exh. A at 7(emphasis added), Government’s Response).

The Court has independently reviewed the record which indicates that the plea agreement,

including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily, see United

States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998) (waiver of right to appeal is valid if knowing

and voluntary). The Court also finds that petitioner’s motion raises no challenge to the validity of the

waiver; therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any collateral challenge to his sentence. See

Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005)(recognizing that if sentencing agreement’s

waiver fo tthe right to file a federal habeas petition is valid, district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the

case.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 3:05-cv-00344-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 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

3 05cv344/02cr2860 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED dismissing petitioner’s motion to vacate, set

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 26, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00344-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 3