Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01219/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01219-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LOPEZ-PINONES,

Petitioner, CR. No. S-04-0239 DFL KJM P

CIV. No. S-05-1219 DFL KJM P

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner moves to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §

2255. The motion is DENIED.

I.

On August 19, 2004, the court sentenced Pinones to forty-six

months in prison after Pinones pled guilty to one count of

violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rather than stand trial, Pinones

entered into a plea agreement with the government. In that

agreement, Pinones and the government agreed to a forty-six month

sentence. In addition, Pinones “specifically agree[d] not to

file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241 attacking any

Case 2:05-cv-01219-DFL Document 2 Filed 03/08/06 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

2

aspect of his conviction or sentence.” (Plea Agreement at 3.) 

On June 20, 2005, Pinones filed this § 2255 motion attacking the

following aspects of his conviction and sentence: (1) the

effectiveness of his counsel; (2) the legality of his sentence;

and (3) the government’s failure to comply with the plea

agreement provisions. Because Pinones asserts that he did not

knowingly sign the plea agreement, and because the government has

not submitted a transcript of the plea colloquy, the court will

bypass this factual determination and address the merits of the

petition.

II.

Pinones argues that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because counsel

informed him of the wrong maximum sentence. Pinones asserts that

his counsel advised him that the maximum sentence he faced was

twenty years when the statutory maximum for a sentence under §

1326(a) is two years. Pinones is wrong.

Although § 1326(a) provides for a two year maximum sentence,

§ 1326(b) states that, notwithstanding the sentence limitation in

§ 1326(a), the statutory maximum sentence for an individual who

is found guilty of violating § 1326 depends on several factors. 

In particular, § 1326(b)(2) provides a maximum sentence of twenty

years for a prior felon who violates § 1326. There is no dispute

that Pinones is a prior felon. Therefore, Pinones’s counsel was

correct to inform him that he could be sentenced to a maximum of

twenty years in prison for violating § 1326. Pinones’ general

Case 2:05-cv-01219-DFL Document 2 Filed 03/08/06 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

3

assertion that counsel did not spend enough time with him, does

not show ineffective assistance. For these reasons, the court

finds that Pinones has failed to show a violation of his Sixth

Amendment rights. 

Similarly, Pinones’s arguments that the forty-six month

sentence violates the statutory maximum and federal sentencing

guidelines also fail. As discussed above, because Pinones was a

convicted felon when he violated § 1326, the maximum sentence he

could have received under the statute was twenty years. 

Pinones’s forty-six month sentence is well below the statutory

maximum and within the federal guideline range.

Finally, Pinones’s assertion that the government failed to

reduce his offense level by four points for participating in an

early disposition program is patently false. Pinones’s Base

Offense Level was eight. This was increased by sixteen points

for his felony conviction. From this total of twenty-four

points, the government subtracted three points because Pinones

accepted responsibility and four points because the plea offer

was part of an authorized early disposition program. This left

Pinones with a offense level of seventeen. Because Pinones’s

Criminal History Category was five, the sentencing range was

forty-six to fifty-seven months. Thus, Pinones’s sentence was at

the very bottom of the range that was based in part on a four

point reduction which resulted from the plea agreement. There is

Case 2:05-cv-01219-DFL Document 2 Filed 03/08/06 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

 Defendant attempts to raise an issue concerning the 1

calculation of his criminal history. He does not show that he

raised this issue during sentencing. Nor is the claim included

the motion. Accordingly, the court declines to address the

argument.

4

no violation of the plea agreement here. 

1

///

III.

For the reasons stated above, the court finds that Pinones

has failed to demonstrate that his sentence violated the

Constitution or a federal statute. The petition is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/7/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01219-DFL Document 2 Filed 03/08/06 Page 4 of 4