Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00177/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00177-0/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 

MDR 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Freddy Ovando-Ocana, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 15-0177-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

 CR 08-0611-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 On February 2, 2015, Movant Freddy Ovando-Ocana, who is confined in the 

Management & Training Corporation’s Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility in Post, 

Texas, filed a pro se “Motion to Ask for the Sentence Deduction.” In a February 24, 

2015 Order, the Court advised Movant that the Court could not construe his Motion as a 

motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), notified Movant that the Court intended to 

construe his Motion as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, warned Movant of the 

consequences of such a recharacterization, and gave Movant 30 days to file either (a) a 

notice withdrawing his Motion or (b) an amended “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).” 

 On March 9, 2015, Movant filed an Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 4). The 

Court will summarily dismiss the Amended § 2255 Motion. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00177-DGC--BSB Document 5 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

I. Procedural History 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pled guilty to using and carrying a firearm 

during and in relation to a crime of violence and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a 

crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The plea agreement provided for a 

sentencing range of 60 to 180 months. On December 14, 2009, the Court sentenced 

Movant to a 120-month term of imprisonment, followed by 3 years on supervised release. 

 Movant seeks a reduction of his sentence. Movant notes that he is ineligible for a 

sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guideline Amendment 782, but 

nevertheless requests a sentence reduction, noting that because he is a deportable alien, 

Movant is ineligible for early release to a half-way house or a camp. 

II. Summary Dismissal

 A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly 

appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 

the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 

Proceedings for the United States District Courts. When this standard is satisfied, neither 

a hearing nor a response from the government is required. See Marrow v. United States, 

772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 

1982). In this case, the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is 

warranted because Movant has waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. 

III. Waiver 

 Movant has waived challenges to his sentence. The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has found that there are “strict standards for waiver of constitutional rights.” 

United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2005). It is 

impermissible to presume waiver from a silent record, and the Court must indulge every 

reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. United 

States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004). In this action, Movant’s waiver 

was clear, express, and unequivocal. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00177-DGC--BSB Document 5 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

 Plea agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally 

be enforced if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. 

Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory 

right to bring a § 2255 action challenging the length of the sentence. United States v. 

Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 

(9th Cir. 1992). The only claims that cannot be waived are claims that the waiver itself 

was involuntary or that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver involuntary. 

See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a plea 

agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas petition pursuant to § 2254 is 

unenforceable with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that challenges 

the voluntariness of the waiver); Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing doubt that a plea 

agreement could waive a claim that counsel erroneously induced a defendant to plead 

guilty or accept a particular plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 (expressly declining 

to hold that a waiver forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the 

waiver); see also Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1156 n.4 (declining to decide whether waiver of 

all statutory rights included claims implicating the voluntariness of the waiver). 

 “Collateral attacks based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are 

characterized as falling outside [the category of ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver] are waivable.” United States v. 

Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001). See also Williams v. United States, 

396 F.3d 1340, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) (joining the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and 

Tenth Circuits in holding that “a valid sentence-appeal waiver, entered into voluntarily 

and knowingly, pursuant to a plea agreement, precludes the defendant from attempting to 

attack, in a collateral proceeding, the sentence through a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during sentencing.”). 

 As part of Movant’s plea agreement, Movant made the following waiver: 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00177-DGC--BSB Document 5 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

The defendant waives any and all motions, defenses, probable cause 

determinations, and objections which the defendant could assert to 

the superseding indictment or information or to the Court’s entry of 

judgment against the defendant and imposition of sentence upon the 

defendant providing the sentence is consistent with this agreement. 

The defendant further waives: . . . (3) any right to collaterally 

attack defendant’s conviction and sentence under Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 2255, or any other collateral attack. 

The defendant acknowledges that this waiver shall result in the 

dismissal of any appeal or collateral attack the defendant might 

file challenging his conviction or sentence in this case. 

(Doc. 305) (emphasis added). Movant indicated in the plea agreement that he had 

discussed the terms with his attorney, agreed to the terms and conditions, and entered into 

the plea voluntarily. (Doc. 305). 

 Movant’s assertions in the Amended § 2255 Motion pertain to his sentence and do 

not pertain to the voluntariness of the waiver. Movant expressly waived issues regarding 

the imposition of sentence and expressly waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. The 

Court accepted the plea as voluntarily made. Consequently, the Court finds that Movant 

waived the issues raised in the Amended § 2255 Motion. Thus, the Court will summarily 

dismiss the Amended § 2255 Motion. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Clerk of Court must terminate Doc. 410 in CR 08-0611-PHX-DGC. 

(2) The Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence (Doc. 4 in CV 15-0177-PHX-DGC (BSB)) is denied and the civil 

action opened in connection with the original § 2255 Motion (CV 15-0177-PHX-DGC 

(BSB)) is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00177-DGC--BSB Document 5 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 8th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00177-DGC--BSB Document 5 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 5