Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02033/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02033-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO GOMEZ-ORTEGA,

Petitioner/Defendant,

CASE NO. 12cr1001/12cv2033-LAB

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. 

vs. § 2255 HABEAS MOTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent/Plaintiff.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner/Defendant Pedro Gomez-Ortega pleaded

guilty to one count of attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On

July 30, 2012, the Court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment plus three years’

supervised release and a $100 assessment. Then on August 16, Gomez-Ortega filed a

motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The petition is virtually an exact boilerplate duplicate of one this Court has rejected

on many occasions as meritless; only the case-specific information such as Gomez-Ortega’s

name and the case number have been typed in. These claims have no more merit now than

on the many other occasions when they were raised and rejected before. See, e.g., RendonInzunza v. United States, 2010 WL 3076271 (S.D.Cal., Aug. 6, 2010).

Furthermore,Gomez-Ortega waived appeal and collateral attack, provided he was not

given a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

government pursuant to his plea agreement. (See Docket no. 13 at 9:24–3 (Plea

- 1 - 12cr1001/12cv2033

Case 3:12-cv-02033-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 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

agreement).) A comparison of his plea agreement and the government’s sentencing

memorandum show the government followed the plea agreement in recommending a

guideline range of 12 to 18 months. (Compare Docket no. 13 at 7:11–28 (provisions of plea

agreement) with Docket no. 23 (government’s sentencing memorandum).) It also bears

mentioning that Gomez-Ortega’s own sentencing summary chart agreed with the

government that the guideline range was 12 to 18 months. (See Docket no. 24.) Because

Gomez-Ortega was not given a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline

range, he waived collateral attack.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cr1001/12cv2033

Case 3:12-cv-02033-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/21/12 Page 2 of 2