Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01759/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: Modification of Imprisonment

---

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 07CV1759

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA DELILAH OCHOA MORALES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1759 BTM

 05CR1196 BTM

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REDUCE SENTENCE

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On September 6, 2007, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to reduce her

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Petitioner is currently serving a 36-month prison

sentence for alien smuggling. She was sentenced by this Court on July 7, 2006 pursuant to

a Resolution Agreement that was reached after Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on six

counts of alien smuggling. [Doc. #49.] In exchange for Petitioner waiving her right to appeal

or collaterally attack her conviction or sentence, the Government agreed to dismiss two of

the six counts of conviction, which reduced the mandatory minimum sentence from five years

to three years. Petitioner’s waiver was contingent upon this Court not imposing a sentence

greater than the jointly stipulated and statutorily mandated three years of prison. Since the

Court did not impose a sentence greater than three years (36 months), Petitioner has waived

the right to collaterally attack her sentence, such as with the present motion.

A waiver of appeal and/or collateral attack of a conviction is enforceable if voluntarily

made. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner has made no

Case 3:07-cv-01759-BTM Document 4 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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 07CV1759

argument that her execution of the Resolution Agreement was involuntary and, in fact,

Petitioner specifically acknowledged at her sentencing that she was voluntarily waiving her

right to appeal and collaterally attack her sentence. (See Transcript of 7/7/06 Sentencing

Proceedings at 16-19.) Accordingly, the Court will enforce Petitioner’s waiver and deny her

motion.

In addition, even if Petitioner’s waiver did not preclude consideration of the present

motion, there is no authority for this Court to revise its earlier sentence. Section 3582 allows

the Court to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed only in certain

specifically enumerated situations: (1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons;

(2) for any reason expressly permitted by statute or Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure; or (3) when a defendant has been sentenced based on a sentencing range that

has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. As the present motion was

not made by the Bureau of Prisons, the first situation is inapplicable. As for the second

possibility, Rule 35 only allows a court to correct a sentence that resulted from “arithmetical,

technical, or other clear error,” and then only within 7 days of sentencing. As Petitioner was

sentenced over one year ago, Rule 35 is inapplicable. Petitioner has not cited any other

statute that would permit this Court to revise its previous sentence. Finally, there has been

no showing that Petitioner’s sentence was based upon any sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered. Rather, she was sentenced to the statutory minimum term of

three years.

For all of the above reasons, Petitioner’s motion must be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01759-BTM Document 4 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2