Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01932/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01932-0/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 –

17cr1802

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,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cr-1802-BAS-1

Case No. 18-cv-1932-BAS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR 

CORRECT SENTENCE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

[ECF No. 36]

v.

ALEXANDRA VAZQUEZ,

Defendant.

On January 29, 2018, following a guilty plea, Alexandra Vazquez was 

sentenced to seventy-six months in custody. As part of her plea agreement, she 

waived her right to appeal or collaterally attack her sentence. She now moves to 

reduce her sentence. Because Ms. Vazquez waived her right to challenge her 

sentence and because the record fails to support her claims, the Court DENIES her 

Motion.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Guilty Plea

On July 5, 2017, Ms. Vazquez was indicted for importing more than 500 grams 

of methamphetamine. (ECF No. 8.)1 In 2012, Ms. Vazquez was charged as part of 

 1 All ECF references are to the criminal case, 17-cr-1802, unless otherwise noted.

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
– 2 –

17cr1802

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 gang-related kidnapping and murder. (Presentence Report (“PSR”) ¶ 49, ECF No. 

26.) She pled guilty to accessory after the fact and admitted the gang enhancement. 

(Id.) Thus, she was ineligible for safety valve in her drug importation case and faced 

a mandatory minimum of ten years in custody.

On October 24, 2017, Ms. Vazquez reached a plea agreement with the 

Government. As part of the plea agreement, the Government agreed to allow Ms. 

Vazquez to plead guilty to a superseding information charging her with importing 

more than five grams of methamphetamine, thus limiting her mandatory minimum 

sentence to five years. The parties jointly agreed to recommend a base offense level 

of 29 under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. (See Plea Agreement § XA, ECF No. 

24.) Other than requesting a role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, defense counsel 

agreed not to request any additional downward adjustments, departures or variances. 

(Id. § XC.) Finally, as part of the plea agreement, Ms. Vazquez waived her right to 

appeal or collaterally attack her sentence with limited exceptions:

Defendant waives (gives up) all rights to appeal and to collaterally attack 

every aspect of the conviction and sentence and the only exceptions are: 

(1) Defendant may appeal a custodial sentence above the high end of the 

advisory guideline range as calculated by the Government at the time of 

sentencing; and (2) defendant may collaterally attack the conviction or 

sentence on the basis that defendant received ineffective assistance of 

counsel.

(Id. § XI.) 

At the time Ms. Vazquez pled guilty, she stated under oath that she had not 

taken any drugs, alcohol or medication in the last 48 hours that affected her ability to 

understand what she was doing. (Plea Transcript 3:15–20, ECF No. 41.) The 

Magistrate Judge also confirmed that Ms. Vazquez had given up her right to appeal 

as part of the plea agreement. (Id. 11:8–14.)

II. Sentencing

The Probation Officer prepared a Presentence Report after speaking with both 

Ms. Vazquez and her sister. (PSR Part C.) Ms. Vazquez disclosed that she suffered 

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
– 3 –

17cr1802

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

from post-partum depression for 1–2 years after the birth of her son (who was 12-

years old at the time of sentencing) and that, during this time, she was prescribed 

Effexor—an antidepressant. (Id. ¶ 83.) Ms. Vazquez’s sister confirmed that Ms. 

Vazquez had struggled with depression for many years and had treated her 

depression-related symptoms with prescription medication. (Id. ¶ 84.) When the 

Probation Officer asked her about her current mental state, Ms. Vazquez “conveyed 

that she is ready to face the consequences of her actions.” (Id. ¶ 85.)

The Probation Department recommended a two-point enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4, finding that Ms. Vazquez had used her three minor children, thenaged 17, 13 and 12, to commit the offense and/or to avoid detection of, or 

apprehension for, the offense. (PSR ¶¶ 32–34.) Specifically, the Probation Officer 

pointed out that Ms. Vazquez had her 17-year-old daughter follow her down toward

the border in a separate car from Riverside. (PSR ¶ 11.) Further, upon returning 

from across the border, Ms. Vazquez planned for her daughter to again follow her to 

the drop-off point so that Ms. Vazquez could leave the drug-laden car with the 

smugglers and return to Riverside. (Id.) Additionally, the case agent opined that Ms. 

Vazquez had brought her other two children along as “window dressing,” and they 

appeared to have been coached to not reveal anything about their time in Mexico. 

(Id. ¶ 14.)

The Probation Officer calculated Ms. Vazquez’s base offense level to be 33 

and her guideline range to be 168–210 months, but recommended a downward 

variance to 76 months in custody. (PSR ¶¶ 134–36.) 

The Government filed a Sentencing Summary Chart recommending that the 

Court find the base offense level to be 24 (5 levels less than the plea agreement 

because the Government ultimately recommended a minor role adjustment) with a 

resulting guideline range of 63–78 months. (ECF No. 31.) The Government 

ultimately recommended 76 months in custody. (Id.)

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
– 4 –

17cr1802

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

Defense counsel filed a Sentencing Summary Chart agreeing with these 

calculations but recommending a sentence of 63 months. (ECF No. 32.) Defense 

counsel also filed a Sentencing Memorandum arguing that Ms. Vazquez had a drug 

addiction problem that had led her to commit the offense and that she was responsible 

for supporting herself and her three children. (ECF No. 33.)

At the Sentencing Hearing, defense counsel argued that, despite Ms. 

Vazquez’s criminal background, this case was the equivalent of a first-time 

importation case. (Sentencing Transcript 4:8–25, ECF No. 42.) He also repeated to 

the Court that “[s]he’s a single mother supporting her kids who is struggling to get 

by,” and her decision to smuggle drugs “was impacted by her addiction.” (Id. 6:18–

19, 21.) Ms. Vazquez read a lengthy letter to the Court at sentencing. (Id. 9:8–11:6.)

Ultimately, except regarding an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4, the 

Court adopted the parties’ joint calculation of the sentencing guidelines. Neither 

party recommended that the enhancement for Ms. Vazquez using her children be 

applied, but the Court agreed with Probation that it was applicable. This was 

significant since Ms. Vazquez had a previous conviction for child endangerment 

when she kept a place for selling or using methamphetamine. Thus, the Court found 

Ms. Vazquez’s guideline range was 78–97 months. (Sentencing Transcript 14:10–

12.) Nonetheless, relying on the arguments of counsel and the equities in the 

Presentence Report, the Court agreed to a slight downward departure and sentenced 

Ms. Vazquez to 76 months in custody. (Id. 15:4–6.) Both Ms. Vazquez and her 

counsel confirmed that, in light of the Court’s sentence, Ms. Vazquez had waived her 

right to appeal the sentence. (Id. 16:13–17.)

C. Section 2255 Motion

Ms. Vazquez now moves for a reduction in her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255, arguing: (1) the sentence was excessive since she was a first time offender; 

(2) she is a single mother of three children; (3) she suffers from severe depression 

and is a drug abuser; (4) her attorney failed to request a “psyche eval” before she 

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
– 5 –

17cr1802

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

signed her plea agreement and that the information in her plea agreement was hard 

to understand (“I don’t know if it was because I was under medication or if I was in 

the right state of mind.”); and (5) her attorney failed to mention any of the above 

grounds at her sentencing. (ECF No. 36.) The Government opposed Ms. Vazquez’s 

motion. (ECF No. 39.) The Court set a January 18, 2019, deadline for Ms. Vazquez 

to file a reply, but she has not done so.

2

ANALYSIS

I. Reduction of Sentence

As an initial matter, Ms. Vazquez knowingly and voluntarily gave up her right 

to appeal or collaterally attack her sentence as part of the plea agreement. (Plea 

Agreement § XI; Plea Transcript 11:10–14; Sentencing Transcript 16:13–17.) Such 

a waiver is enforceable. United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 319 (9th

Cir. 1996) (holding a waiver of appeal is enforceable as part of a negotiated plea 

agreement if it is made voluntarily and knowingly); United States v. Abarca, 985 

F.2d 1012, 1013 (9th Cir. 1993) (same with respect to collateral attack). On that 

ground alone, her motion to reduce her sentence fails.

However, a quick look at the grounds Ms. Vazquez now raises shows that her 

motion is also meritless. First, she was not a first-time offender. She had both a prior 

conviction for possession of methamphetamine and a prior conviction for being part 

of a gang-related murder. Second, the grounds she now raises were raised at 

sentencing either in the Presentence Report, by her attorney in his Sentencing 

Memorandum, or both. The Court was informed that Ms. Vazquez was a single 

mother of three children, that she had suffered from depression and that she was a 

drug abuser. Defense counsel argued that, despite her criminal record, she was the 

 2

 The Court initially set the reply deadline as December 3, 2018. (ECF No. 38.) However, 

the briefing schedule sent to Ms. Vazquez was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 40.) 

Accordingly, the Court reset the reply deadline and directed new mail service to Ms. Vazquez. 

(ECF No. 43.) The Court has not received notice that this revised briefing schedule failed to reach 

Ms. Vazquez.

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
– 6 –

17cr1802

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

equivalent of a first-time offender. Thus, all of the factors now raised in this Motion 

were raised and considered by the Court at sentencing. To the extent that Ms. 

Vazquez argues that her attorney failed to mention any of these concerns at 

sentencing, the record says otherwise.

Third, to the extent Ms. Vazquez suggests that she may have been under 

medication or not in her right state of mind at the time she pled guilty, her statements 

are again belied by the record. (Plea Transcript 3:15–18 (Q: [H]ave you taken any 

drugs, alcohol, or medication in the last 48 hours that would affect your ability to 

understand anything that we’re doing today?” A: “No.”).) Tellingly, Ms. Vazquez 

does not actually say she was under medication or that she did not understand the 

plea agreement. She does not because neither of these suggestions is true. 

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

To the extent Ms. Vazquez is arguing that her attorney’s representation was 

ineffective because her attorney failed to request a psychological evaluation before 

she signed her plea agreement, this argument must also fail. Even in a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel in a guilty plea, the defendant must meet the 

Strickland test; that is, she must show first, “that counsel’s assistance was not within 

the range of competence demanded of counsel in criminal cases,” and second, that 

she suffered actual prejudice as a result of this incompetence. Lambert v. Blodgett,

393 F.3d 943, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57–58

(1985).

“A deficient performance is one in which counsel made errors so serious that 

[]he was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” Iaea 

v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687 (1984)). “Review of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and there 

is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of 

reasonable representation.” United States v. Ferreira-Alameda, 815 F.2d 1251, 1253 

(9th Cir. 1987). The court should not view counsel’s actions through “the distorting 

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
– 7 –

17cr1802

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

lens of hindsight.” Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1995)

(quoting Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on other 

grounds in Angelone v. Deutscher, 500 U.S. 901 (1991)). 

In order to satisfy the second “prejudice” prong in a guilty plea case, 

“defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s 

errors, [s]he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” 

Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. If the claim is a failure to investigate, prejudice turns on “the 

likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his 

recommendation as to the plea,” which in turns leads to an inquiry of “whether the 

evidence likely would have changed the outcome of the trial.” Id.

Ms. Vazquez fails to establish either prong of the ineffective assistance of 

counsel test in this case. First, she fails to allege why her attorney should have 

requested a psychological evaluation before allowing her to plead guilty. She fails 

to allege anything that would have suggested to her attorney that such an evaluation 

would have been prudent or helpful. There is no evidence whatsoever that this 

alleged failure was an error of any kind, let alone one that resulted in a deficient 

performance. Second, Ms. Vazquez fails to make any showing that, if her attorney 

had obtained an evaluation, she would not have pled guilty, would have insisted on 

going to trial or would have received a reduced sentence. 

In fact, Ms. Vazquez received a greatly reduced sentence as part of her plea 

agreement. She was facing at least a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, but her 

attorney managed to negotiate a deal in which that sentence was reduced by at least 

three years. The Court agreed to vary from the guideline range of 78–97 months. 

One of the reasons for a reduced sentence was the depression Ms. Vazquez had 

suffered that had been documented in the Presentence Report. Ms. Vazquez fails to 

show how a psychological evaluation would have likely changed the outcome in this 

case. Hence, she does not demonstrate she is entitled to relief based on ineffective 

assistance of counsel. 

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
– 8 –

17cr1802

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

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Ms. Vazquez’s Motion.

(ECF No. 36.) Second thoughts are not grounds for a motion to vacate or modify a 

sentence. Additionally, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant 

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). Ms. Vazquez has made no such showing. Because reasonable jurists 

would not find the Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000). The Clerk is directed to close Case No. 18-cv-1932.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01932-BAS Document 3 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8