Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01833-0/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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cr283-LAB-1 and

16cv1833-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

DONALD WAYNE VARNADO,

Defendant.

Defendant Donald Wayne Varnado pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and of possession of a firearm in

connection with the drug offense. Under his plea agreement, he waived appeal and

collateral attack except for challenges based on effective assistance of counsel, provided

he was not sentenced to more than the 60 months above the high end of the guideline range

recommended by the government pursuant to the plea agreement. The plea agreement

specifically excluded any agreement as to his criminal history category. (Docket no. 22 at

10:25–27.) After a recommended 5K1.1 departure of -7, the resulting guideline range

recommendation was 84 to 105 months and the actual recommendation was 120 months.

(Docket no. 26). On July 29, 2014 he was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of 60

months, for a total of 120 months. (Docket no. 44 at 2.) Varnado filed no appeal or

collateral attack, and his sentence became final. 

- 1 - 14cr283-LAB-1 and 16cv1833-LAB

Case 3:16-cv-01833-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

In November, 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, under which Varnado

was eligible to petition California’s state courts to retrospectively reclassified two of his state

convictions from felonies to misdemeanors. By orders dated February 19, 2016, two of his

felonies were so reduced. (See Docket no. 47, Exs. A and B.) Varnado then filed a petition

to be resentenced by this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that with the

state’s reclassification of his offenses, he is entitled to a lower sentence.

The offenses Varnado pled guilty to carry mandatory minimum sentences. His

sentences were not guidelines-driven, but were statutory. His argument that he would have

been given a lower sentence under changed guidelines therefore fails. See, e.g., United

States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (holding that defendant whose

sentence was based on statutory mandatory minimum rather than sentencing guidelines was

not entitled to a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on guideline amendment).

In addition, Varnado was properly sentenced under the law in force at the time, and

he does not argue otherwise. The argument he raises here is foreclosed by United States

v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016)’s holding regarding the effect of Proposition 47

reclassifications on federal sentencing. See especially id. at 975 (“[E]ven if California

decided to give Proposition 47 retroactive effect for purposes of its own state law, that would

not retroactively make [the defendant’s] felony conviction a misdemeanor for purposes of

federal law.”)

Finally, Varnado waived collateral attack, and his petition can properly be denied on

that basis as well. Even if Varnado had been entitled to benefit from the reclassification of

his state convictions at the time of sentencing, his criminal history score would (at best) have

been reduced from 15 to 9.1 Using the sentencing table in effect at the time, and keeping

all other factors the same, his criminal history category would have dropped from VI to IV,

and the guideline range would have dropped to 63–78 months. Because his sentence was

1 The motion does not identify which two of Varnado’s five convictions were

reclassified as misdemeanors, but bearing in mind that he had five convictions, each of

which scored three points, it does not really matter. At best, two of the convictions would not

have scored, resulting in a criminal history score of 9 instead of 15. 

- 2 - 14cr283-LAB-1 and 16cv1833-LAB

Case 3:16-cv-01833-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

less than 60 months higher than the high end of that range, his waiver still would have been

effective. The fact that Proposition 47 was not yet enacted does not affect the validity of his

waiver. See United States v. Johnson, 67 F.3d 200, 202 (9th Cir.1995).

The motion is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED. See Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2017

___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 3 - 14cr283-LAB-1 and 16cv1833-LAB

Case 3:16-cv-01833-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3