Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03090/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CARLOS GUADALUPE

GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NOS. 12-CV-3090-H

 10-CR-3504-H

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On December 26, 2012, Carlos Guadalupe Gonzalez (“Petitioner”), proceeding

pro se, filed a petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (“Petition”) pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 41.)1

 Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the grounds that

his indictment charging him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) is unconstitutional. 

(Doc. Nos. 41 at 1-3, 26.) But Petitioner pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545

pursuant to a written plea agreement, and the Court dismissed the indictment charging

him with the violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (Doc. No. 26.) On May 15, 2013, the

government filed a response in opposition. (Doc. No. 46.) For the reasons set forth

below, the Court denies the petition. 

1

 Document numbers reference filings in 10-CR-3504-H.

- 1 - 10-CV-3090-H; 10-CR-3504-H

Case 3:12-cv-03090-H Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 6
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 September 1, 2010, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging

Petitioner with one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of unlawful importation

of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. (Doc. No. 9 at 1-2.) 

On August 19, 2010, Petitioner entered the United States from Mexico at the Otay

Mesa, California Port of Entry as the sole occupant of a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu. (Doc.

No. 46 at 2.) As the inspector examined the vehicle, he noticed that there were very

little personal effects within. (Id.) The inspector removed the rocker panel of the

vehicle and found packages wrapped in black tape. (Id.) An agent took custody of the

vehicle and utilized a narcotic detector dog which alerted leading to the discovery of

7.34 kilograms of methamphetamine within Petitioner’s vehicle. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.)

On January 18, 2011, the government filed a superseding information charging

Petitioner with one count of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545, importation contrary to law. 

(Doc. No. 21.) On January 18, 2011, Petitioner pled guilty to the violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 545 in the superceding information pursuant to a written plea agreement. (Doc. No.

26.) In return for the government’s concessions in the plea agreement, Petitioner

waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction. (Id. at 8-9.) 

At sentencing, Petitioner requested an eighteen month sentence. (Doc. No. 32

at 1.) The government requested a forty-eight month sentence. (Doc. No. 28 at 2.) 

After considering the advisory guidelines and the sentencing factors set forth in 18

U.S.C. §3553(a)(1), the Court sentenced Petitioner on May 9, 2011 to thirty-seven

months imprisonment for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545. (Doc. No. 34 at 1-2.) In

addition, the Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment

including the violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (Doc. No. 33.) 

On December 6, 2012, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 36.) On

December 14, 2012, the Ninth Circuit ordered Petitioner to file a motion for voluntary

- 2 - 10-CV-3090-H; 10-CR-3504-H

Case 3:12-cv-03090-H Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 6
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

dismissal of the appeal or show cause in writing why it should not be dismissed for lack

of a timely notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 39.) On January 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit

granted Petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal of his appeal. (Doc. No. 42.)

On December 26, 2012, Petitioner filed his petition for habeas corpus. (Doc. No.

41.) Petitioner argues that the Court should dismiss the indictment for Possession of

a Controlled Substance with the Intent to Distribute, in violation of section 841(a)(1)2

,

because section 841(a) fails to provide proper notice of potential punishment in

violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). (Doc. No. 41 at 1.) On May 15, 2013, the government filed its opposition,

arguing that the petition should be denied because it lacks merit, is time-barred, and

Petitioner waived his right to collateral attack in his plea agreement. (Doc. No. 46 at

2.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard for Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

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 section 2255, a prisoner must allege a constitutional or

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

miscarriage of justice [or] omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair

procedure.” United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783 (1979). 

///

///

2

The Court dismissed the indictment on May 9, 2011. (Doc. No. 34 at 1.)

- 3 - 10-CV-3090-H; 10-CR-3504-H

Case 3:12-cv-03090-H Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 3 of 6
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. Petitioner’s Request for Dismissal of Indictment Under Section 841(a)

On January 18, 2011, the government filed a superceding information charging

Petitioner with violating 18 U.S.C. § 545. (Doc. No. 21.) On May 9, 2011, this Court

dismissed the indictment charging Petitioner with violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) on

the government’s motion. (Doc. No. 34 at 1.) Therefore, Petitioner’s request to dismiss

the indictment is moot.3

III. Waiver of Right to Appeal or Collaterally Attack Sentence

A defendant may waive the statutory right to bring a § 2255 motion challenging

the conviction or sentence. See United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 

1994). Courts will enforce a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal if: (1) “the

language of the waiver encompasses the defendant’s right to appeal on the grounds

claimed on appeal,” and (2) “the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made.” United

States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1998). The waiver must also

expressly state that it waives the right to collaterally attack the conviction or sentence. 

United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff waived his right to file a section 2255 motion challenging his sentence

as part of his plea agreement. (Doc. No. 26 at 8-9.) 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 any lawful restitution order, except a post-conviction collateral attack based on a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. The defendant also waives, to the full extend of

the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack his 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.

(Id.) The agreement explicitly waives the right to collaterally attack the sentence. (Id.) 

The Court did not impose a sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range

3

The Court need not reach the parties’ statute of limitations arguments because the claim fails on the merits.

- 4 - 10-CV-3090-H; 10-CR-3504-H

Case 3:12-cv-03090-H Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 4 of 6
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

recommended by the government. (Doc. Nos. 28 at 2, 34 at 2-4.) Rather, the Court

imposed a sentence below both the Guideline range and the sentence recommended by

the government. (Id.) Therefore, the Court concludes that the record demonstrates that

the plea agreement expressly encompasses the Petitioner’s section 2255 claim. 

Furthermore, after reviewing the record, there is no evidence that the plea was

involuntary or unknowing.4

 The Petitioner certified that he read the agreement, or that

it was read to him in his native language, discussed its terms with his counsel, and fully

understood its meaning and effect. (Doc. No. 26 at 11.) The Court also verified the

Petitioner voluntarily and knowingly entered into the plea agreement with a Rule 11

colloquy. (Doc. No. 23.) The record demonstrates that the plea was voluntary and

knowing. Accordingly, the Court also denies Petitioner’s motion based on his plea

agreement waiver.

IV. Certificate of Appealability

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), there is no appeal from a final

order in a proceeding under section 2255 unless a “circuit judge or district judge issues

a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).” A “certificate of appealability

may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the required showing, a

“petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner has failed to make such a showing. Accordingly the

Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 

///

///

///

4

 Petitioner was represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney. Petitioner does not claim, nor is there any evidence of, ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Petitioner independently verified he was satisfied with counsel’s representation. (Doc. No. 26 at 12.)

- 5 - 10-CV-3090-H; 10-CR-3504-H

Case 3:12-cv-03090-H Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 5 of 6
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

After due consideration of the petition and the law, the Court concludes that

Petitioner’s petition to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 fails. Accordingly, the Court denies the petition and denies Petitioner a

certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2013 ________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 6 - 10-CV-3090-H; 10-CR-3504-H

Case 3:12-cv-03090-H Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 6 of 6