Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01811/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01811-0/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

- 1 - 08cr 00541

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CR5114WQH

CASE NO. 11CV1811WQH

vs. ORDER

MARCO ANTONIO CABALLERO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 39). Defendant moves the court to modify his

sentence on the grounds that he cannot be housed in a minimum security facility or community

corrections center based upon his deportation status. The Court finds that the issues raised in

the petition are appropriate for summary disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without

jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which

imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” A district court must

Case 3:11-cv-01811-WQH Document 2 Filed 08/23/11 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

- 2 - 08cr 00541

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).

 RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to

bring a motion for reduction of his sentence under § 2255 in the plea agreement. The plea

agreement stated in relevant part as follows: 

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in this plea agreement, defendant

waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack

the guilty plea, conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless

the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the greater of the high end of the

guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this plea

agreement at the time of the sentencing or the statutory mandatory minimum

term, if applicable. If the custodial sentence is greater than the high end of that

range, the defendant may appeal, but the Government will be free to support on

appeal the sentence actually imposed. If the defendant believes the

Government’s recommendation is not in accord with this agreement, defendant

will object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the objection will be deemed

waived. If defendant breaches this plea agreement, at any time, by appealing or

collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence, in any way, the Government

may prosecute defendant for any counts, including those with mandatory

minimum sentence, dismissed or not charged pursuant to this plea agreement.

Additionally, the Government may use any factual admissions made by

defendant pursuant to this plea agreement in any prosecution.” 

(ECF No. 28 at 3.) 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, 298 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory right to

file a § 2255 petition challenging the length of his sentence. See United States v. Abarca, 985

F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979 (1993). Defendant’s waiver of collateral

attack upon the sentence is clear, express and unequivocal. Defendant waived his right to

collaterally attack his sentence in a 2255 proceeding, unless the Court imposes a custodial

sentence above the greater of the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this plea agreement at the time of the sentencing or the statutory

mandatory minimum term, if applicable. Defendant received a sentence of 30 months which

Case 3:11-cv-01811-WQH Document 2 Filed 08/23/11 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

- 3 - 08cr 00541

is not above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant

to this plea agreement at the time of the sentencing (37-46 months). There is no statutory

mandatory minimum term applicable in this case. Therefore, the Defendant waived his right

to collaterally attack the sentence in the plea agreement.

Even if there was no waiver of collateral attack, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit has rejected the assertion that an alien’s equal protection rights are violated when he

cannot be housed in a minimum security facility or a community correction center based upon

his deportation status. See McClean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Court concludes that “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.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 39) filed by Defendant is denied. 

DATED: August 23, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01811-WQH Document 2 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 3