Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00785/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00785-0/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

3:16-cv-00039-GPC-MDD

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,

vs.

ISRAEL JACQUEZ-LOZANO

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-CR-1711-GPC

ORDER:

DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE 

SENTENCING PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2255

On January 30, 2017 Israel Jacquez-Lozano (“Defendant”) submitted a pro se

letter to the Court, which the Court construed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion 

is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Defendant was arrested on June 29, 2016 and charged with being a deported alien 

found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). (Dkt. No. 9 at 1.)

At the time of his arrest, Defendant was also determined to have violated the conditions 

of supervised release from a previous 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction. (See Dkt. Nos. 9, 11.) 

On August 30, 2016, Defendant tendered a plea of guilty as to the present case, and on 

September 14, 2016, this Court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 23.)

Case 3:17-cv-00785-GPC Document 2 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:16-cv-00039-GPC-MDD

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

The written plea agreement between the United States of America and Defendant 

stipulated that the parties would recommend sentencing based on several agreed upon

advisory guideline calculations, but the parties did not agree on a recommended period of 

supervised release. (Dkt. No. 20 at 7-8, 10.) The plea agreement acknowledged that 

“The sentence is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge. ... [and] if the 

sentencing judge does not follow any of the parties’ sentencing recommendations, 

defendant nevertheless has no right to withdraw the plea.” (Id. at 6-7.) The plea 

agreement further stated, “If the Court imposes a term of supervised release, defendant 

agrees that he will not later seek to reduce or terminate early the term of supervised 

release until he has served at least two-thirds of his term of supervised release and has 

fully paid and satisfied any special assessments, fine, criminal forfeiture judgment and 

restitution judgment.” (Id.)

Prior to sentencing, the Probation Office recommended twenty-four months in 

custody and no term of supervised release under U.S.S.G § 5D1.1(c). (Dkt. No. 24 at 

16.) The Probation Office considered Defendant’s prior criminal convictions and 

deportations when making its recommendation, noting that Defendant had been removed 

from the United States on six prior occasions. (Id. at 5-9.)

Defendant’s attorney recommended Defendant only serve six months in custody in 

the instant case and eight months in custody for violation of the conditions of his 

supervised release in the 2015 case. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1-2.) Defense counsel emphasized 

that Defendant’s criminal history of non-immigration related offenses ended twenty-nine

years ago. (Id. at 3.)

The United States of America similarly recommended that Defendant serve six

months in custody for the instant case. (Dkt. No. 28 at 2.)

On November 10, 2016, this Court sentenced Defendant to six months 

imprisonment and one year of supervised release. (Dkt. No. 31 at 2-3.) On that same 

date, Defendant was also sentenced to nine months imprisonment for violation of his

Case 3:17-cv-00785-GPC Document 2 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:16-cv-00039-GPC-MDD

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

supervised release in the 2015 case, which was to run concurrent to the six month 

sentence in the present case. (Case No. 15-CR-0197, Dkt. No. 35 at 2.)

On January 30, 2017, Defendant submitted a letter to the Court requesting (1) that 

the Court correct an error in his “data sheet” indicating that he is serving a fifteen-month 

sentence rather than a nine-month sentence and (2) that the Court remove his one-year 

term of supervised release pursuant to new amendments passed by the United States 

Sentencing Commission. (Dkt. No. 33.) The Court construed the letter as a motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and directed the 

Government to respond. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Section 2255 of title 28 authorizes courts 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 a 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 

(1962)).

DISCUSSION

1. Length of Sentence

Defendant is correct when he asserts that he should only be serving a total of nine

months in prison following his guilty plea and revocation of supervised release. 

Defendant pled guilty to being a removed noncitizen found in the United States in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), for which he was sentenced to six months, and 

was found to have violated the conditions of his supervised release in case 15-CR-0917,

Case 3:17-cv-00785-GPC Document 2 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:16-cv-00039-GPC-MDD

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

for which he was sentenced to nine months. The Court ordered that Defendant serve 

these sentences concurrently rather than consecutively. 

When defendants are found guilty of more than one crime at the same time, 

sentencing can occur one of two ways: concurrently, meaning the terms are served at the 

same time and overlap one another, or consecutively, meaning that the second term 

begins only once the first term has been served in full. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584. Here, 

Defendant was permitted to serve his terms concurrently. Because both terms of 

imprisonment will be served at the same time, Defendant will only serve the longer of the 

two sentences — that is, the nine-month imprisonment sentence for violation of his 

supervised release. Although both imprisonment sentences collectively add up to fifteen

months, Defendant will only serve nine months in prison. 

Accordingly and to the extent that any “data sheet” at the Bureau of Prisons 

incorrectly states that Defendant is to serve his sentenced concurrently for a total of 15 

months, the Court hereby ORDERS that the records be corrected to reflect a total 

custodial sentence of nine months.

2. Term of Supervised Release

Defendant further requests that the Court remove the one-year term of supervised 

release that it imposed in light of new amendments passed by the United States 

Sentencing Commission.

Effective November 1, 2011, U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 was amended to include 

subsection (c), which provides that courts “ordinarily should not impose a term of 

supervised release in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the 

defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” United 

States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting U.S.S.G. 

§ 5D1.1 cmt. n.5). As to the application of subsection (c), the Guidelines further explain 

that:

In a case in which the defendant is a deportable alien specified in subsection 

(c) and supervised release is not required by statute, the court ordinarily 

Case 3:17-cv-00785-GPC Document 2 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:16-cv-00039-GPC-MDD

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

should not impose a term of supervised release. Unless such a defendant 

legally returns to the United States, supervised release is unnecessary. If such 

a defendant illegally returns to the United States, the need to afford adequate 

deterrence and protect the public ordinarily is adequately served by a new 

prosecution. The court should, however, consider imposing a term of 

supervised release on such a defendant if the court determines it would 

provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and 

circumstances of a particular case.

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that the use of the word 

“ordinarily” in § 5D1.1 is not mandatory, but rather gives the district court discretion to 

“consider imposing a term of supervised release . . . if the court determines it would 

provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and 

circumstances of a particular case.” Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 693 (adopting 

reasoning of United States v. Dominquez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2012)). 

Here, the Defendant’s circumstances were not “ordinary” within the meaning of 

§ 5D1.1. Defendant has seven adult criminal convictions, not including the present 

conviction, and has been removed from the United States on six prior occasions. (Dkt. 

No. 24 at 6-9.) Defendant’s repeated attempts to reenter the United States illegally 

despite his numerous removals demonstrate that he is a criminal recidivist who warranted

a one-year term of supervised release in order to deter him from re-offending. As such 

and given Defendant’s history of criminal behavior and unwillingness to remain outside 

the United States, it was within the Court’s discretion to impose a term of supervised 

release as necessary to “provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on 

the facts and circumstances” of his case. See U.S.S.G § 5D1.1; see also RamirezRamirez v. United States, 2015 WL 1544252, *3-5 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Koh, J.) (finding 

the petitioner’s circumstances were not ordinary within the meaning of § 5D1.1 because 

petitioner was already on supervised release for prior federal illegal re-entry conviction 

and had significant family ties in the United States that indicated he would re-offend); 

United States v. Carbajal-Hernandez, 2015 WL 4923705, *4-5 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (Curiel, 

J.) (finding imposition of supervised release for deportable alien appropriate to provide 

Case 3:17-cv-00785-GPC Document 2 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:16-cv-00039-GPC-MDD

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

an added measure of deterrence and protection in light of petitioner’s violent and criminal 

nature as reflected by his prior criminal convictions).

The Court further observes that, in his plea agreement, Defendant expressly 

acknowledged that this Court had full discretion to impose an appropriate sentence 

regardless of the parties’ recommendation and that if the Court did impose a term of 

supervised release he would not later seek to reduce or terminate early the term of 

supervised release. (Dkt. No. 20 at 6-7, 10.) Absent evidence indicating that the terms of 

the plea agreement are no longer in force or are otherwise void, Defendant is bound by its 

contents. The Court, therefore, concludes that even if sentencing Defendant to a term of 

supervised release was beyond its discretion, Defendant nonetheless waived his right to 

challenge any such term through acceding to the plea agreement. See Ramirez-Ramirez, 

2015 WL 1544252, at *4 (refusing to revisit imposition of supervised release under 

§ 5D1.1 for 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violation because Defendant waived right to bring § 2255

challenge in plea agreement). 

Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds no fundamental 

error or defect in its imposition of supervised release. See Timmreck, 441 U.S. at 783.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Clerk of Court shall close the 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00785-GPC Document 2 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6