Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01723/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01723-0/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

10cv1723; 10cr0496

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

v.

FABIAN BENITEZ-SANTANA, 

Defendant/Petitioner.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10-CV-1723-JLS

Criminal No. 10-CR-0496-JLS

ORDER:

1) DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE,

OR CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255; 

2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; and

3) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND 

On August 17, 2010, Petitioner Fabian Benitez-Santana filed a motion to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court has reviewed the record in

this case and, for the reasons set forth below, will dismiss Petitioner’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Fabian Benitez-Santana was charged in a single-count information with being a

deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On March 4, 2010,

Petitioner entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to the information. In exchange for

Petitioner’s guilty plea, Petitioner agreed to waive the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the

plea, conviction, or sentence unless the Court imposed a sentence above the greater of the high

Case 3:10-cv-01723-JLS Document 2 Filed 07/29/11 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

2 10cv1723; 10cr0496

end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to the plea agreement, or

the statutory mandatory minimum term, if applicable. (Plea Agreement at 3, ¶11.) The plea

agreement set forth stipulated Sentencing Guideline calculations resulting in a total offense level

of 19, and provided that the Government would recommend a sentence at the low end of the

range for that level. 

Petitioner was sentenced by this Court on March 19, 2010. The Court followed the

calculations set forth in the plea agreement and found a total offense level of 19, which at a

criminal history category II, resulted in a guideline sentencing range of 33 to 41 months. The

Government complied with its obligations under the plea agreement and recommended a

sentence at the low end of the range. The Court followed the Government’s recommendation

and imposed a sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner contends that the sentence imposed by this Court is illegal because: 1) this

Court abused its discretion by failing to measure the seriousness of Petitioner’s prior conviction

when it applied U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 2L1.2 to enhance Petitioner’s sentence; 2)

Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to request a downward

departure for Fast Track; and 3) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to advise Petitioner of the

risk of deportation before entering the plea of guilty.

Because Petitioner entered a plea agreement containing a waiver of the right to

collaterally attack his sentence, the Court must initially determine whether the waiver is valid. If

it is, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s collateral challenges to his sentence. 

See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d. 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that if sentencing

agreement’s waiver of the right to file a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was

valid, district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case). The sole test of a waiver’s validity is

whether it was made knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Anglin, 215 F.3d 1064, 1068

(9th Cir. 2000). 

The Court has independently reviewed the record, which reveals that the plea agreement,

including the waiver of the right to appeal and collateral attack, was entered knowingly and

Case 3:10-cv-01723-JLS Document 2 Filed 07/29/11 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

3 10cv1723; 10cr0496

voluntarily. It is undisputed that the plea agreement contains a waiver of collateral attack. The

plea agreement also contains a provision certifying that Petitioner read the agreement, discussed

it with his attorney, and fully understood its meaning and effect. The plea agreement is initialed

on each page and signed by Petitioner and, immediately above his signature, contains language

confirming Petitioner’s agreement with the “foregoing provisions.” 

Although Petitioner now contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, 

these allegations are flatly contradicted by the record. Petitioner contends that his attorney failed

to provide competent assistance because he failed to seek a downward departure for Fast Track

and failed to advise Petitioner of the risk of deportation resulting from the plea. However, trial

counsel did seek, and was granted, a downward departure for Fast Track – the departure was set

forth in the parties’ joint guideline recommendations in the plea agreement and was granted by

the Court when it adopted those recommendations. With respect to the risk of deportation, the

plea agreement plainly sets forth a stipulated removal provision providing that “Defendant

agrees to an order of removal from the United States entered by the Executive Office for

Immigration Review or authorized Department of Homeland Security official.” Id. at 10. 

Therefore, any suggestion that Petitioner was not aware that he would be removed from the

United States as a result of the conviction is disingenuous at best.

Based upon this record, the Court finds Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel to be baseless. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily

entered the plea agreement, and thus has waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction. 

 CONCLUSION

Having carefully considered Petitioner’s claims in view of the case files and records, the

Court finds the record sufficiently developed to conclusively show that Petitioner is entitled to

no relief. The Court finds that Petitioner has waived his right to collaterally challenge his 

conviction and sentence in this matter. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED.

Additionally, the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability, as Petitioner has

not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 3:10-cv-01723-JLS Document 2 Filed 07/29/11 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

4 10cv1723; 10cr0496

2253(c) (providing that a certificate shall issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of a denial of a constitutional right”). Finally, Petitioner’s Motion for Release on Bond

(Doc. No. 25) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01723-JLS Document 2 Filed 07/29/11 Page 4 of 4