Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01577/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01577-0/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

JUAN FELIX-CORRALES,

Petitioner,

CASE NOS. 13-CR-2683-H

 14-CV-1577-H

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On December 2, 2013, this Court sentenced Petitioner Juan Felix-Corrales

(“Petitioner”) to forty-one months in custody for attempting to illegally reenter the

United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). (Doc. No.

25.) On June 30, 2014, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set

1

aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 27.) On August 4,

2014, the United Statesfiled a response in opposition to Petitioner’s motion. (Doc. No.

30.) On August 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a reply in support of his § 2255 motion. 

(Doc. No. 32.) The Court denies the motion for writ of habeas corpus.

///

///

Document numbers in this Order refer to docket 13-cr-2683-H. 1

- 1 - 13cr2683/14cv1577

Case 3:14-cv-01577-H Document 2 Filed 11/05/14 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

Background

On August 29, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty to a single-count information

charging himwith attempting to enter the United States as a deported alien in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). (Doc. Nos. 9; 16.) Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant

to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally

attack his sentence for any reason other than ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc.

No. 16.) On September 13, 2013, the Court accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea. (Doc.

No. 18.) 

In accordance with the plea agreement, the United States recommended sixtythree months in custody, the low end of the sixty-three to seventy-eight months

recommended by the advisory sentencing guidelines. (Doc. No. 22.) Petitioner asked

the Court for a sentence of thirty-six months. (Doc. No. 23.) At the sentencing

hearing, the Court heard from Petitioner and Respondent, considered the advisory

sentencing guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Petitioner to

forty-one months in custody, twenty-two months fewer than the advisory guidelines’

low-end sentence of sixty-three months. (Doc. No. 25; 26.)

Discussion

I. Legal Standard for Petition for Habeas Corpus

Section 2255 authorizes the Court to “vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence”

of a federal prisoner on “the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to

impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized

by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To

warrant relief under § 2255, a prisoner must allege a constitutional or jurisdictional

error, or a “fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of

justice [or] an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” 

United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783 (1979) (quoting Hill v. United States,

368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962)).

- 2 - 13cr2683/14cv1577

Case 3:14-cv-01577-H Document 2 Filed 11/05/14 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

II. Analysis

Petitioner contends he is entitled to relief under § 2255 because he intends to

apply for United States citizenship and “would need [his] sentence corrected.” (Doc.

No. 27 at 3.) As support for his motion, Petitioner cites 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. (Doc. No.

32 at 2.) Section 1229b provides that the Attorney General may cancel the removal of

certain permanent and nonpermanent residents who meet the statutory requirements. 

8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Petitioner has not provided any legal argument or factual support

for his claim that § 1229b provides grounds to challenge his § 1326 conviction or

sentence. (See Doc. Nos. 27; 32.) Further, the Court is not aware of any way in which

§ 1229b establishes a constitutional or jurisdictional error in Petitioner’s sentence, or

a “fundamental defect which inherently resultsin a complete miscarriage of justice [or]

an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Timmreck,

441 U.S. at 783. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that relief under

§ 2255 is warranted. See id.

Additionally, as part of his plea agreement, Petitioner waived his right to

challenge his sentence under § 2255. (Doc. No. 16 at 10-11.) The Ninth Circuit has

upheld the enforceability of waiversin plea agreementslike Petitioner’s, reasoning that

the right to appeal or collaterally attack one’s sentence is derived by statute, and “[a]

knowing and voluntary waiver of a statutory right is enforceable.” United States v.

Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Petitioner’s plea agreement states in relevant part:

In exchange for the Government’s 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, except a post-conviction

collateral attack based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

unless the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the high end of the

guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this

agreement at the time of sentencing. 

(Doc. No. 16 at 10-11.) Here, the Court did not impose a sentence above the high end

ofthe guideline range recommended by the United States. (See Doc. No. 26.) Pursuant

- 3 - 13cr2683/14cv1577

Case 3:14-cv-01577-H Document 2 Filed 11/05/14 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

to the plea agreement, the United States recommended the Court sentence Petitioner

to sixty-three months in custody, the low end of the sixty-three to seventy-eight months

recommended by the advisory guidelines. (Doc. No. 22.) The Court sentenced

Petitioner to forty-one months after considering the advisory sentencing guidelines and

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. (Doc. No. 26.) Because Petitioner has raised a claim

other than ineffective assistance of counsel and the Court imposed a sentence of less

than seventy-eight months, Petitioner has waived his right to appeal or collaterally

attack his sentence. See Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014. 

In his plea agreement, Petitioner represented that his waiver of his right to appeal

his conviction and sentence was knowing and voluntary, and Petitioner does not argue

otherwise. (Doc. No. 16 at 12.) Petitioner also confirmed his waiver of the right to

appeal to the Court during sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, Petitioner and

Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that appeal had been waived. Accordingly,

Petitioner waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. See Abarca,

985 F.2d at 1014. Thus, even if Petitioner’s § 2255 argument had merit, the Court

would deny Petitioner’s motion.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court denies Petitioner’s § 2255 motion. 

Additionally, the Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2014

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 4 - 13cr2683/14cv1577

Case 3:14-cv-01577-H Document 2 Filed 11/05/14 Page 4 of 4