Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01495/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01495-0/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. 12-CV-1495 

related CASE NO. 5-CR-1484

ORDER 

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR TIME REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

AND 

(2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

JESUS AVENDANO,

Defendant.

Petitioner Jesus Avendano filed a motion for reduction of time pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

He seeks relief on the grounds that due to his alien status he is ineligible for a one year reduction of

sentence through a drug program, an early release to a half-way house, or a Unicor job. [Pet. At 2.] 

Petitioner argues that the availability of these programs to United States citizens but not to aliens

violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, deprives him of Due Process

under the Fifth Amendment, and violates the Equal Rights Act of 1964.1

 [Id.]

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams and more of

1

 Petitioner submitted a three page Petition, in which he simply lists the Constitutional clauses

and states that an alien is deprived of benefits and privileges available to United States citizens. In

addition, Petitioner states that he was arrested in August of 2011 and sentenced to 33 months in

custody. A review of the record indicates that he was arrested in August of 2005 and sentenced to 108

months in custody on February 26, 2007. [Doc. 96.]

- 1 - 5-CR-1481/12-CV-1495

Case 3:12-cv-01495-L Document 2 Filed 06/28/12 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

methamphetamine (actual) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, which carries a maximum sentence of

up to life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. [Doc. 44.] As part of

his plea agreement, Petitioner waived any right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and

sentence unless the court imposed a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline

range recommended by the Government pursuant to the plea agreement. [Doc. 44.] The parties

jointly recommended a base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

(U.S.S.G.) of 36 with downward adjustments of three points for acceptance of responsibility and

two points if Petitioner met the requirements for the “Safety Valve” provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

resulting in an offense level of 31 and a guideline range of 108 to 135 months in custody. [Docs.

44 & 63.] The Government agreed to recommend that Petitioner be sentenced to the low end of

the guideline range found by the court. [Doc. 44.] Petitioner was sentenced to 108 months in the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). [Docs. 97-98.]

DISCUSSION

Section 2255(a) authorizes a district court to “vacate, set aside or correct “ a sentence of a

federal prisoner that “was imposed in violation of the Constitution or a laws of the United States.” 

The Rules governing § 2255 require dismissal of a motion under that section if 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, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255. Similarly, if the record clearly indicates

that a petitioner does not have a claim or that he has asserted no more than conclusory allegations

unsupported by facts and refuted by the record, a district court may deny a motion without an

evidentiary hearing. United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). 

As a preliminary matter, it appears that the present Petition is untimely. However, even if

Petitioner were able to show that his Petition is timely, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his

collateral challenge to his sentence because he waived his appellate and collateral attack rights. 

A knowing and voluntary waiver of a statutory right is enforceable. United States v.

Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1990). The right to collaterally attack a sentence

under § 2255 is statutory in nature, and a defendant may therefore waive the right to file a § 2255

petition. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca, 985

- 2 - 5-CR-1481/12-CV-1495

Case 3:12-cv-01495-L Document 2 Filed 06/28/12 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

F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, if Petitioner’s plea agreement waiver is valid, this Court

lacks jurisdiction to consider his collateral challenge to his sentence. See Washington v. Lampert,

422 F.3d. 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that if sentencing agreement’s waiver of the right

to file a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was valid, district court lacked jurisdiction

to hear the case). The sole test of a waiver’s validity is whether it was made knowingly and

voluntarily. United States v. Anglin, 215 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1068). 

Petitioner does not raise any challenges to the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea. 

The plea agreement contains a provision certifying that Petitioner read the agreement (or had it

read to him in his native language) and that Petitioner discussed its terms with his defense counsel

and fully understood its meaning and effect. [Doc. 44, at 13:20-24.] It also contains a provision

certifying that the plea was knowing and voluntary. [Id. at 6:26 - 7:12.] Petitioner was sentenced

to the low end of the range jointly recommended by the parties, calculated by his own counsel, and

in accordance with his negotiated plea agreement. [Docs. 44, at 10, & 63, at 5.] Accordingly,

Petitioner’s waiver applies and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his Petition. See

Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005).

Even assuming Petitioner had not waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence, his

claims would fail on the merits. His due process claim fails because BOP rules excluding prisoners

with Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) detainers from sentence reduction through

participation in community based treatment programs do not deprive alien prisoners of due

process. McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 1999) (Denial of a sentence reduction

dies not impose atypical and significant hardship on an inmate in relation to ordinary incidents of

prison life and prisoners do not have a liberty interest in the discretionary sentence reduction.

(citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995))).

Similarly, the denial of certain benefits to alien prisoners does not violate the Equal

Protection Clause. Petitioner has not alleged that he has an INS detainer. Nor has he cited the

particular programs to which he claims to have been denied access. Rather he states that a citizen

is “entitled to different privileges due to his or her origin like one year reduction of sentence

through a drug program three months half-way house to prepare to re-assimilate, a Unicor job,

- 3 - 5-CR-1481/12-CV-1495

Case 3:12-cv-01495-L Document 2 Filed 06/28/12 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

with good wages and other benefits [sic].” This Court acknowledges that, had Petitioner not

waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence, these details would become important to the

outcome of this decision. Nonetheless, because Petitioner is an alien and has been convicted of a

drug offense rendering him subject to deportation upon release from custody, Petitioner’s

circumstances are identical to that of the appellants in Crabtree.2 The Crabtree court decided that

“prisoners with detainers” is not a suspect class, 173 F.3d at 1186. Therefore, excluding prisoners

from certain programs on that basis was subject only to the rational basis test and its presumption

of validity. Id. Because the BOP has a valid concern that prisoners with detainers pose a flight

risk during community based treatment programs, excluding such prisoners does not violate the

Equal Protection clause. Id. Likewise, Petitioner, due to his status as a deportable alien, would

pose a potential flight risk and can be excluded from various programs and benefits on that basis. 

As to his contention that he has been denied a Unicor job, “‘[i]t is not an equal protection violation

to allow United States citizen-inmates, who must re-enter domestic society, to participate in

rehabilitative or other programs while denying that privilege to deportable inmates.’” PattersonRomo v. United States 2012 WL 2060872 at *3 (denying an identical petition) (quoting RendonInzunza v. United States, 2010 WL 3076271, at *1.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for sentence reduction under 28 U.S.C. §

2255 is DENIED. Because Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right this Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

2Crabtree analyzed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3621, which provides for discretionary

sentence reduction of up to one year for certain prisoners who successfully complete a treatment

program, in conjunction with Bureau of Prisons Regulations which exclude aliens with INS detainers

from participation in residential treatment programs.

- 4 - 5-CR-1481/12-CV-1495

Case 3:12-cv-01495-L Document 2 Filed 06/28/12 Page 4 of 4