Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01825/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01825-0/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

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

JUAN YBARRA,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-1825-BEN

 13-cr-4515(1)-BEN

ORDER

Movant has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

On September 9, 2014, Juan Ybarra pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. In his plea agreement, 

he agreed to waive “to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally 

attack the conviction and sentence, including any restitution order.” Plea Agmt. § XI. 

Nearly four years later, on August 3, 2018, Ybarra filed the instant motion, seeking to 

collaterally attack and vacate his conviction and sentence. Ybarra contends that despite 

Case 3:18-cv-01825-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/01/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

only pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, his conviction and 

sentence should be set aside because he was not “informed of the degree of 

force/injury/harm to another that constitutes a violent crime.”

LEGAL STANDARD

Under section 2255, a movant is entitled to relief if the sentence: (1) was imposed 

in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) was given by a court 

without jurisdiction to do so; (3) was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by 

law; or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. 

Speelman, 431 F.3d 1226, 1230 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). If it is clear the movant has failed to 

state a claim, or has “no more than conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts and 

refuted by the record,” a district court may deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary 

hearing. United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). That is the case here.

DISCUSSION

A one-year period of limitation applies to a motion under section 2255(f) which 

runs from the date the judgment of conviction becomes final. Movant was sentenced on 

February 17, 2015 and Judgment was entered the same day. There was no appeal. 

Movant filed the instant motion on August 3, 2018, well beyond the one-year statute of 

limitations period. Movant has not asserted any exception applies to justify a delay in 

filing the motion. Accordingly, the motion is time-barred and dismissed.

Alternatively, the motion is denied because Movant validly waived his right to 

collaterally attack his sentence. The record discloses no issues as to the voluntariness of 

Movant’s plea. 

Moreover, contrary to his contentions, his sentence was not unconstitutionally 

enhanced under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). Dimaya concerned an alien 

deportation proceeding under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and played no part 

in Movant’s conviction or sentencing. 

Additionally, Movant contends that his crime of violating section 841(a) required 

as an element a substantial risk of physical injury against a person or a resulting serious 

Case 3:18-cv-01825-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/01/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

bodily injury. Because his crime did not involve the use of force, he believes he 

misunderstood the crime to which he pleaded guilty. Movant is incorrect. While serious 

bodily injury can affect the statutory sentencing range, it is not an element of the crime.

Although movant does not mention it, the Court notes that the PSR calculated the 

Guideline range as 292 to 365 months. The Government calculated the Guideline range 

as 188 to 235 months. Movant calculated the Guideline range as 130 to 162 months. All 

agreed that Movant’s criminal history score was 18 and criminal history category VI 

because of his extensive criminal history. This Court sentenced Movant to 211 months, 

which was below the low end as calculated by the Probation Department and in the 

middle of the range as calculated by the government. 

As there are no arguable grounds as to whether Movant’s sentence is illegal, the 

Court enforces the collateral attack waiver. Ruiz-Diaz, 668 F. App’x at 290 (citing 

United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009)). Alternatively, Movant’s 

motion is denied on the merits. 

CONCLUSION

Movant requests appointment of counsel to assist him. However, Movant’s claim 

is time-barred and impermissible due to his collateral attack waiver and these issues 

cannot be remedied by appointment of counsel. Therefore, the request for counsel is 

denied. Movant also seeks to supplement his motion and includes the proposed 

supplement. See Doc. 121. The motion is granted.

The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DENIED.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-01825-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/01/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

///

No Certificate of Appealability

A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists could 

debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 

presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 

certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2020 ____________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01825-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/01/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4