Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01206/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01206-0/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

18cv1206-LAB and 17cr337-LAB-1

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,

v.

ANDREA BALL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1206-LAB and 

17cr337-LAB-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 

2255

Defendant Andrea Ball pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and was 

sentenced to 105 months’ imprisonment, followed by eight years’ supervised 

release. She was also a Defendant in case 17cr336, and in that case she pled 

guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and 

conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. In that case, she was also sentenced 

to 105 months, followed by eight years’ supervised release. The sentence and term 

of supervised release in this case run concurrently with those in case 17cr336. 

In this case, Ball filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255. (Docket 

no. 195.) Her motion did not say what Ball wanted the Court to do, nor did it give 

adequate reasons for any change to her sentence. The Court issued an order 

(Docket no. 196) explaining why, in its current form, the motion would be denied. 

It gave her leave to file an amended petition no later than July 20. Or, if she felt 

Case 3:18-cv-01206-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1206-LAB and 17cr337-LAB-1

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

she needed to file her petition under seal, she was given the option to do that. If 

Ball did not file an amended petition by July 20, the order cautioned, the Court 

would rule on her petition as filed.

Ball’s counsel was directed to contact her and to assist her as needed. Since 

then, her counsel informally contacted chambers staff, saying that Ball did not want 

to proceed with the petition. But neither Ball nor her counsel have filed anything 

in the docket. The government, however, did file transcripts of Ball’s change of 

plea hearing and her sentencing hearing. The transcripts show that Ball was fully 

lucid, understood and actively participated in the proceedings, and was satisfied 

with her counsel’s performance. (See Docket no. 198 at 9:13–15; 11:12–15.) At 

sentencing, the only problem Ball mentioned was a dry throat, and after taking a 

drink of water, she allocated clearly and at length. (See Docket no. 197 at 8:21–

10:13.) 

For these reasons, and for reasons explained in the Court’s earlier order 

(Docket no. 196), it is clear Ball is entitled to no relief. The motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01206-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2