Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02102/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02102-0/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

14cr3009-LAB-1 and 16cv2102-LAB

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,

v.

ILSE JAQUELINE SERRANOVALLADOLID,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14cr3009-LAB-1 and 

16cv2102-LAB

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

UNDER 28 U.S.C.' 2255

Petitioner Ilse Jaqueline Serrano-Valladolid pled guilty to one count of 

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 

80 months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release. Judgment 

was entered on February 26, 2015 and she filed no appeal. Her conviction 

therefore became final 14 days later, on March 13. See United States v. Gilbert, 

807 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2015); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). On July 13 of that 

year, she filed a motion for reduction of her sentence under Amendment 782 to the 

U.S.S.G. The Court denied that motion without prejudice. (Docket no. 29.) On 

August 15, 2016, Serrano-Valladolid then filed a petition to vacate her sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255, arguing that she should receive a minor role adjustment 

under Amendment 794, which she argues is retroactive. 

Case 3:16-cv-02102-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14cr3009-LAB-1 and 16cv2102-LAB

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

Amendment 794 became effective on November 1, 2015, and is retroactive

only on direct appeal. United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 915–16 (9th Cir. 2018)

(citing United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016)). This 

Court has held that Amendment 794 does not apply retroactively to sentences 

already final before its effective date. United States v. Yanez, 2016 WL 4248541 

(S.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2016). And every court within this Circuit that has considered 

the issue has agreed. See, e.g., United States v. Charles, 2017 WL 3641787, slip 

op. at *3 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2017); United States v. Nunez, 2017 WL 119169, slip 

op. at *5 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2017) (citing Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 521 n.1).

Other courts have also refused to apply Amendment 794 retroactively. See 

Hernandez v. United States, 2017 WL 2465014, slip op. at *2 (S.D. Cal., June 7, 

2017) (citing cases).

Furthermore, the ' 2255 petition was filed more than a year after judgment 

was became final, and is therefore untimely under ' 2255(f). Amendment 794 

does not restart the clock. See United States v. Kou Yang, 2018 WL 117825, slip 

op. at *2 (E.D. Cal., March 6, 2018) (citing cases); United States v. Valencia, 2016 

WL 4491848 at *2 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 25, 2016). Although it does not appear the 

Ninth Circuit has addressed the issue, the Tenth Circuit has done so, and in 

addition to agreeing with these courts, has held that jurists of reason would not find 

the issue debatable. See United States v. Harrison, 680 Fed. Appx. 678 678, 680–

81 (10th Cir. 2017).

The petition cannot be construed as a ' 3582(c) motion. See Ozuna v. 

United States, 2017 WL 4083724 at *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017); Yanez, 2016 WL 

4248541 at *1.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02102-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14cr3009-LAB-1 and 16cv2102-LAB

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 petition is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02102-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3