Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00237/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00237-0/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 

15CR2547-JLS 

 17CV0237-JLS 

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/Respondent, 

v. 

MAXIMO GOMEZ-CARDENAS (2), 

Defendant/Petitioner. 

 Case Nos.: 15CR2547-JLS 

 17CV0237-JLS 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Maximo Gomez-Cardenas’ 

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 

145). The Court has considered Petitioner’s motion and the record in this case and, for 

the reasons set forth below, will deny the motion. 

Background

 Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. (ECF No. 70.) On December 29, 2015, 

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge pursuant to a plea agreement. (ECF No. 66, 79.) 

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Petitioner agreed to waive any right to appeal or 

to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence, with the exception of a post-conviction 

collateral attack based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Plea Agreement, 

ECF No. 66 at 14.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00237-JLS Document 2 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

15CR2547-JLS 

 17CV0237-JLS 

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

 Petitioner was sentenced by this Court on June 10, 2016. (ECF No. 142.) The 

Government recommended a sentence of 80 months’ imprisonment, and Petitioner, 

through counsel, requested a sentence of 57 months. (ECF No. 146 at 6.) The Court 

found a base offense level of 32,1

 applied a three-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility, a two-level departure for Fast Track, and granted a 2-level departure for 

combination of circumstances, resulting in a guideline range of 57-71 months.2

 Id. at 11- 

12. Petitioner was sentenced to the mid-range of 65 months’ incarceration. Id.

Analysis

 In his §2255 motion, Petitioner sets forth the following grounds for relief: 

A. Ineffective assistance of counsel; 

B. The counsel failed to object to the sentence imposed; 

C. The counsel failed to explain the risks and benefits of a plea offer; 

D. The counsel failed to negotiate a plea bargain; 

E. The counsel failed to protect defendant’s appellate rights; 

F. The counsel failed to object to information on which defendant’s sentence was 

 based. 

Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 145 at 2. 

 The allegations set forth above, some of which are demonstrably false, constitute 

the sole information provided to the Court with respect to Petitioner’s motion. There are 

no other facts or details offered in support of Petitioner’s claims, nor has there been any 

showing that these allegations affected Petitioner’s decision to enter a guilty plea. 

Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do 

not warrant habeas relief. Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir.1970). 

Here, Petitioner has made an insufficient factual showing that any of his claims warrant 

relief. 

                                               

1

 Based on 499.4 grams of heroin and 446.5 grams of methamphetamine (actual). 

2

 Petitioner was determined to belong to Sentencing Guideline Criminal History Category I. (ECF No. 

149 at 11.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00237-JLS Document 2 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

15CR2547-JLS 

 17CV0237-JLS 

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

Petitioner first contends that defense counsel failed to object to the sentence 

imposed, but the record reflects that defense counsel filed objections to the Presentence 

Report and filed sentencing documents requesting the Court impose a sentence of 57 

months. (ECF Nos. 136-139.) At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel again raised 

her objections and urged the Court to impose a sentence of 57 months. (ECF No. 146). 

Although the Court did not completely adopt Petitioner’s position, it granted a 2-level 

departure for a combination of the circumstances presented by defense counsel. Thus, 

while the ultimate sentence imposed was higher than that requested by Petitioner, it was 

lower than it would have been absent his counsel’s advocacy. Furthermore, any 

objection to the 65-month mid-range sentence after it was imposed would have been 

futile as the Court had already taken Petitioner’s position into consideration in arriving at 

what it deemed to be the appropriate sentence. 

Petitioner also contends that defense counsel failed to explain the risks and benefits 

of a plea offer. Petitioner fails to inform the Court what was left unexplained and how 

this affected him. The plea agreement signed by Petitioner indicates that, “[b]y signing 

this agreement, defendant certifies that he has read it (or that it has been read to defendant 

in defendant’s native language). Defendant has discussed the terms of this agreement 

with defense counsel and fully understands its meaning and effect.” (ECF No. 66 at 17.) 

During the change of plea colloquy, Petitioner advised the judge that he had a chance to 

ask his attorney any questions he had about the terms of the plea agreement and told the 

court he did not have any questions about the agreement that day. (ECF No. 148 at 8.) 

The magistrate judge found that Petitioner’s plea was “freely and voluntarily given with 

an understanding, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his rights...” Id. at 13. Neither 

Petitioner nor the record present any reason to conclude otherwise. 

Petitioner next contends that defense counsel failed to negotiate a plea bargain. 

This contention is refuted by the record. Petitioner entered a plea agreement through 

which he gained concessions from the United States. It is reasonable to assume that this 

agreement was negotiated by defense counsel. Another argument contradicted by the 

Case 3:17-cv-00237-JLS Document 2 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

15CR2547-JLS 

 17CV0237-JLS 

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

record is Petitioner’s assertion that defense counsel failed to object to information on 

which his sentence was based. Petitioner does not indicate what information defense 

counsel failed to raise an objection to, but the record is clear that defense counsel did file 

objections to the Presentence Report and orally objected to certain evidence at the 

sentencing hearing. See ECF Nos. 136 and 146. 

Finally, Petitioner contends that defense counsel failed to protect his appellate 

rights. Again, the Court is left to speculate as to what is meant by this. Petitioner’s plea 

agreement contained a waiver of the right to appeal, which by every indication in the 

record was entered freely and voluntarily. Thus, without a more specific showing by 

Petitioner,3

 the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner is entitled to relief on this claim. 

Conclusion 

 Having carefully considered Petitioner’s claims in view of the case files and 

records, the Court finds the record sufficiently developed to conclusively show that 

Petitioner is entitled to no relief. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DENIED. 

 Additionally, the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability, as 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional 

right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that a certificate shall issue “only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right”). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 28, 2020 

                                               

3

 Petitioner does not contend that his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal after a request by Petitioner 

that she do so, thus the Court finds Petitioner’s vague allegation in this case to be distinguishable from 

that presented in Garza v. Idaho, 139 S.Ct. 738 (2019) (recognizing that an attorney provides ineffective 

assistance by failing to file of notice of appeal after a client’s clear request to do so, even if the client has 

signed an appeal waiver). 

Case 3:17-cv-00237-JLS Document 2 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4