Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01001/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01001-0/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 

14cr216-MMA-2 

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. 

ISRAEL SOTO (2), 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14cr216-MMA-2 

Related Case No.: 18cv1001-MMA 

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

VACATE AND CORRECT 

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 

[Doc. No. 643] 

 On November 3, 2016, Defendant Israel Soto pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of a 

Superseding Indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in 

violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, section 841(a)(1), and Title 

18, section 2. See Doc. No. 571. Defendant was sentenced to a total custodial term of 

135 months. See Doc. No. 626. Defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence 

directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Doc. No. 628. 

Defendant now moves to vacate and correct his sentence based on ineffective assistance 

Case 3:18-cv-01001-MMA Document 2 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

14cr216-MMA-2 

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

of counsel. See Doc. No. 643. For the reasons set forth below, the Court summarily 

DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant raises a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which he bases 

on the assertion that his sentence is in excess of the maximum sentence permitted by law. 

Defendant cites to United States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016), and argues that his 

previous state felony drug convictions have been reclassified as misdemeanors. Although 

Defendant does not expound upon this contention, the implication is that reclassification 

of his previous convictions as misdemeanors would result in a reduced criminal history 

score, a lower criminal history category, a lower Guidelines sentencing range, and a 

reduced sentence. 

1. Legal Standard 

Section 2255 provides that if a defendant’s motion, file, and records “conclusively 

show that the movant is entitled to no relief” the Court summarily may dismiss the 

motion without sending it to the United States Attorney for response. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(b). The rules regarding Section 2255 proceedings similarly state that the Court 

summarily may order dismissal of a 2255 motion without service upon the United States 

Attorney only “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any attached exhibits, 

and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief . . . .” 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Thus, when a movant fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or when the motion is incredible or 

patently frivolous, the district court may summarily dismiss the motion. Cf. United States 

v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989); Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 

526 (9th Cir. 1985). 

2. Analysis 

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion is subject to summary 

dismissal. Defendant’s claim clearly fails on the merits under Diaz, “in which the Ninth 

Circuit held that Proposition 47 does not retroactively make a defendant’s felony 

Case 3:18-cv-01001-MMA Document 2 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

14cr216-MMA-2 

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 a misdemeanor for purposes of federal law.” United States v. Vazcones, No. 

13cr3309-MMA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53937, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2017); see also 

United States v. Menchaca, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16565, 2017 WL 475324, at *4-*5 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (“Even if defendant demonstrated that one of the predicate 

felony convictions . . . was reduced to a misdemeanor under state law, the holding of 

Diaz, that reclassification pursuant to Proposition 47 does not apply retroactively for 

purposes of a federal sentencing enhancement, controls.”). 

Moreover, Proposition 47 did not amend any of the statutes under which Defendant 

was previously convicted. Proposition 47 is codified in California Penal Code section 

1170.18, which provides in pertinent part: 

A person who . . . may petition for a recall of sentence before the trial court 

that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request 

resentencing in accordance with Sections 11350, 11357, or 11377 of the 

Health and Safety Code, or Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of 

the Penal Code, as those sections have been amended or added by this act. 

Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18(a). According to the Presentence Report, Defendant suffered 

convictions under Section 11359 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Sections 

368(d) and 459 of the California Penal Code.1

 See Doc. No. 577 at 11-12. As such, 

Defendant’s prior state convictions are not eligible for recall or reclassification under the 

statute, and his motion must be denied.2

 

                                               

1

 The Presentence Report indicates that in 2009 Defendant was charged under Section 476a(a) of the 

California Penal Code for writing bad checks. See Doc. No. 577 at 12. However, Defendant was not 

convicted under Section 476a. He instead pleaded guilty to burglary under Section 459. Id. 

 

2

 The Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the issues can be conclusively decided on the basis of 

the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977); see also United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 

F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a “district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing 

on a Section 2255 claim where the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to 

relief”). Here, a review of the record conclusively establishes that Defendant is clearly not “entitled to 

relief.” Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is neither warranted nor required. 

Case 3:18-cv-01001-MMA Document 2 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

14cr216-MMA-2 

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

 Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. 

The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Defendant has not 

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

2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to enter judgment accordingly in the related civil case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: May 22, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01001-MMA Document 2 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4