Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01386/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01386-0/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 – 15cr2874

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. 15-cr-2874-BAS, 18-cv- 1386-BAS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2255

[ECF No. 55]

v.

SELENA PEREZ,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 29, 2016, Ms. Selena Perez (“Petitioner”) pled guilty to 

intentionally importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. 

(ECF No. 29.)1

 The Court ultimately sentenced her to 100 months in custody. (ECF 

No. 42.) Petitioner appealed her sentence to the Ninth Circuit, but it was affirmed. 

(ECF No. 54.) 

Petitioner now files this Motion to Vacate, requesting that her case be 

remanded for resentencing. (ECF No. 55.) Petitioner argues that her constitutional 

right to due process was violated. First, she claims she “was not afforded the 

reduction under Amendment 782 . . . a defendant can present evidence of post-

 1 The Court’s ECF references are to Case No. 15-cr-2874-BAS.

Case 3:18-cv-01386-BAS Document 2 Filed 09/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 15cr2874

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

conviction rehabilitation.” (Id., Ground One.) Second, Petitioner claims she “was 

deprived of evidence stating the correct amount and purity of methamphetamine 

attributed to her.” (Id., Ground Two.) The Government opposes. (ECF No. 57.) 

For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Vacate.

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to importing methamphetamine. (ECF No. 29.) As part 

of her plea agreement, Petitioner agreed that the base offense level for the amount of 

methamphetamine she imported could be as high as 38 but could not “be determined 

until the DEA laboratory has performed a chemical analysis of the substance.” (Plea 

Agreement § X.A.1, ECF No. 31.) The Presentence Report, drafted before the DEA 

laboratory report was finalized, recommended a base offense level of 36. (ECF No. 

34, pg. 21.) The Probation Department calculated Petitioner’s guideline range as 

188-235 months and recommended 188 months in custody. (Id., pg. 19.)

The Government filed a Sentencing Summary Chart, informing the Court that 

the “DEA laboratory results reflect that the narcotics involved . . . w[ere] 17.54 

kilograms of methamphetamine with a purity level of 98.1%.” (ECF No. 39.) Thus, 

the Government recommended a base offense level of 38. (Id.) The Government 

calculated Petitioner’s guideline range as 235-240 months, but recommended a 

sentence of 120 months.

Defense counsel filed a Sentencing Memorandum, urging the Court to ignore 

the Sentencing Guidelines calculations and recommending a sentence of 60 months, 

based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. (ECF No. 41.) Notably, defense counsel did 

not raise an issue with respect to the laboratory report and the Government’s 

calculations of the base offense level. (Id.) Nor did defense counsel raise any issue 

of post-arrest rehabilitation, focusing instead on Petitioner’s difficult childhood and 

her need for drug treatment. (Id.) 

Case 3:18-cv-01386-BAS Document 2 Filed 09/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 15cr2874

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 Court adopted the Government’s base offense level of 38, but ultimately, 

the Court found a downward departure was warranted and sentenced Petitioner to 

100 months in custody. (ECF No. 42.)

Petitioner appealed her sentence, but it was affirmed. (ECF No. 54.) Again, 

notably, no issue was raised on appeal that Petitioner’s base offense level was 

incorrectly determined or that the Court failed to consider post-arrest rehabilitation. 

III. ANALYSIS

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), a prisoner in custody may move to vacate, set 

aside, or correct a sentence that she believes was imposed in violation of the 

Constitution or laws of the United States or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 

However, claims that should have been raised on appeal, but were not, are 

procedurally defaulted. See United States v. Bousley, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998) 

(“Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and will not be allowed to service for an 

appeal.” (quotations omitted)). “Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a 

claim by failing to raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if 

the defendant can first demonstrate either ‘cause’ and actual ‘prejudice’ . . . or that 

he is ‘actually innocent.’” Id. at 622 (citations omitted). Furthermore, it is a 

petitioner’s burden to set forth adequate facts to establish that she is entitled to relief,

and a failure to do so is fatal. See, e.g., United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 

824 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that although § 2255 imposes a fairly lenient burden on

a petitioner to get an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner is still “required to allege

specific facts which, if true, would entitle [her] to relief”).

Because Petitioner failed to raise on appeal any of the issues she now raises in 

this Motion to Vacate, the claims have been procedurally defaulted. Petitioner makes 

no attempt to show either cause or prejudice for her failure to raise the issues on 

appeal, nor do her claims rise to the level of actual innocence. Hence, on that ground 

alone, the Court could deny the Motion.

Case 3:18-cv-01386-BAS Document 2 Filed 09/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 15cr2874

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

However, Petitioner also fails to allege any facts that would support her 

argument that she is entitled to habeas relief. First, she argues that her constitutional 

right to due process was violated when she was not given the benefit of Amendment 

782. Presumably Petitioner is referring to Amendment 782, which was an 

amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, effective long before Petitioner was 

sentenced. This Amendment reduced some of the offense levels for drug penalties. 

U.S.S.G. §2D1.11 (historical note). The amendment was effective and was used to 

calculate Petitioner’s guideline range. Thus, to the extent Amendment 782 provided 

her any benefit, she received that benefit at the time of her sentencing. Petitioner 

argues that if she was entitled to resentencing, she could present evidence of postconviction rehabilitation. However, the fact that she may have taken advantage of 

rehabilitative services offered in prison after her conviction does not rise to the level 

of a violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States at the time of her 

sentencing. Petitioner simply alleges insufficient facts to support a motion under § 

2255.

Next, Petitioner argues that she “was deprived of evidence stating the correct 

amount and purity of methamphetamine attributed to her.” (ECF No. 55, Ground 

Two.) Again, Petitioner fails to allege any facts supporting this argument. The 

Government explained in its Sentencing Summary Chart that the DEA laboratory 

report calculated the narcotics imported by Petitioner as “17.54 kilograms of 

methamphetamine with a purity level of 98.1%.” (ECF No. 39.) Petitioner’s defense 

counsel, who had a copy of this DEA laboratory report, did not object to the 

Government’s argument either at sentencing or on appeal. Hence, it is not clear what 

evidence of which Petitioner was allegedly deprived when the Court calculated her 

guideline range. She provides no facts that the amount and purity of 

methamphetamine attributed to her was incorrect.

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-01386-BAS Document 2 Filed 09/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 15cr2874

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Because Petitioner has procedurally defaulted her claims and because she fails 

to allege any factual evidence to support her claims, the Motion to Vacate her 

Sentence is DENIED (ECF No. 55).

Further, the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability, as she has 

not made a substantial showing that she has been denied a constitutional right. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that a certificate shall issue “only if the applicant 

has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01386-BAS Document 2 Filed 09/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5