Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01484/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01484-0/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

 Unless otherwise indicated, the cited docket numbers are from the civil case that was

opened upon the filing of the motion to vacate.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Guadalupe Burgos-Ramos, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 09-0084-PHX-FJM

CV 09-1484-PHX-FJM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE:

Pending before the court is Movant’s pro se second amended Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

(Doc. 8).1

BACKGROUND

On July 9, 2009, pursuant to a guilty plea, Movant was convicted of re-entry after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). (Doc. 32 of CR 09-0084-PHX-FJM).

He was sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years of supervised release. (Id.) 

Case 2:09-cv-01484-FJM Document 20 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

On July 17, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

(Doc. 1). The motion was denied with leave to amend because Movant failed to file his

motion on the court-approved form. (Doc. 4). Movant’s amended Motion to Vacate, filed

on September 22, 2009, was also denied with leave to amend, because Movant failed to

allege a violation of federal law or the Constitution. (Doc. 6, 7). 

Movant filed a second amended Motion to Vacate, along with a Memorandum of Law,

on November 23, 2009. (Doc. 8, 9). He alleges one ground for relief in the motion: that his

lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment when

he failed to file a direct appeal. (Doc. 8). Movant further requests that the court grant an

evidentiary hearing. The United States filed a Response to Motion to Vacate on April 22,

2010. (Doc. 16). Movant has not filed a reply. Additionally, on July 8, 2010, the court

ordered Movant’s court-appointed attorney, Adrian Fontes, to file an affidavit in response

to Movant’s factual allegations against him. (Doc. 17). Mr. Fontes filed the affidavit on July

26, 2010. (Doc. 19).

DISCUSSION

The two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel was established by the

Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To prevail on an

ineffective assistance claim, a convicted defendant must show: (1) that counsel's

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that there is a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. There is a strong

presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable assistance.

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-90. “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that

every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the

circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s

perspective at the time.” Id. at 689.

Movant’s sparse claim of ineffective assistance of counsel simply alleges that his

lawyer failed to file a direct appeal. Movant does not allege that he asked his lawyer to file

Case 2:09-cv-01484-FJM Document 20 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

an appeal or that they had any discussions about an appeal. Movant’s counsel states in the

affidavit he filed that he has no recollection of Movant instructing him to file a notice of

appeal on his behalf. (Doc. 19 at 4). He further states that his practice is to discuss an appeal

following the sentencing hearing and put a note in the file when the defendant requests an

appeal. (Id.). Counsel’s practice is to then file a timely notice of appeal to preserve the right.

(Id.). Counsel states that there are no notes in his file indicating that Movant requested an

appeal in this case. (Id.). He states that if such a request had been made, he would have

written notes in his file and subsequently filed a notice of appeal. (Id.). 

The court finds that Movant’s minimal allegations are insufficient to show that his

lawyer’s performance was deficient, especially in light of his lawyer’s affidavit setting forth

his customary practice regarding notices of appeal. Movant fails to allege that he ever

requested an appeal and his counsel’s notes suggest he did not. Without more from Movant

to establish that his lawyer’s failure to file an appeal was deficient performance, the court

finds that he has not established that element of an ineffective assistance claim. 

Moreover, even if Movant could demonstrate deficient performance, he has presented

nothing to satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. He fails to allege any grounds

that should have been raised on appeal or any argument that such grounds would have been

successful. He makes no mention at all in his claim that the result of the proceedings would

have been different if an appeal had been filed. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Movant has not demonstrated, or even

adequately alleged, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth

Amendment. Accordingly, the court will recommend that the second amended Motion to

Vacate be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Movant’s second amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by

a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 8) be denied.

Case 2:09-cv-01484-FJM Document 20 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: 

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

be DENIED because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01484-FJM Document 20 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4