Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00085/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00085-0/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

RAMON CERVANTES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-CV-00085-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE CONVICTION AND

SENTENCE

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

On August 24, 2012, Cervantes pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

approximately 21.41 kilograms (42.20 pounds) of methamphetamine and 2.40 kilograms

(5.30 pounds) of cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See Case No. 12-CR-3254, Doc.

Nos. 13-16. On October 30, 2012, the Court sentenced him to 80 months in prison, and

judgment was entered on November 2, 2012. Id. at Doc. No. 29. Over one year later, on

January 10, 2014, Cervantes filed the present action—a motion to vacate his conviction and

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is DENIED.

Cervantes asserts four claims: (1) counsel failed to properly advise him of his

constitutional rights; (2) there was no factual basis for his guilty plea; (3) counsel did not

provide him an opportunity to allocute; and (4) counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal. 

In his plea agreement with the United States, Cervantes waived his right to appeal or

collaterally attack his conviction and sentence, except for a post-conviction collateral attack

- 1 - 14-CV-00085-LAB

Case 3:14-cv-00085-LAB Document 2 Filed 07/31/14 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

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. See Case No. 12-CR-3254, Doc. No. 16 at 11.

For that reason, Cervantes’s claims aren’t waived by his plea agreement and must be

assessed on their merits under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

First, Cervantes claims that counsel was ineffective by failing to properly advise him

of his constitutional rights. Upon inspection of the record, this claim is factually inaccurate

and objectively wrong. Cervantes not only signed a written plea agreement acknowledging

his various rights, but he also initialed each page, including page 5 which includes a section

entitled “DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF TRIAL RIGHTS.” Id. at 5. In addition, Cervantes

knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty in front of a Magistrate Judge, whose Findings and

Recommendations were adopted by this Court on October 30, 2012. See Case No. 12-CR3254, Doc. Nos. 26, 27.

Second, Cervantes claims that counsel was ineffective because there was no factual

basis for his guilty plea. Again, this argument is objectively wrong. On August 24, 2012, the

Magistrate Judge discussed the nature of Cervantes’ offense and why, in fact, he was guilty. 

Specifically, Cervantes acknowledged that: (1) he drove a vehicle to a Boarder Patrol

checkpoint near Niland, California; (2) the vehicle he was driving contained 21.41 kilograms

(42.20 pounds) of methamphetamine and 2.40 kilograms (5.30 pounds) of cocaine; (3) he

knew there was a high probability that drugs were in his vehicle; (4) he deliberately avoided

learning the truth about what kind of drug was in his vehicle; (5) he intended to deliver the

vehicle and its contents to another person; (6) he had loaned the vehicle to another person

prior to driving it; (7) after loaning the vehicle, the gas gauge did not work properly because

the drugs were in the gas tank; (8) he intended to be paid for driving the vehicle from Mexico

into the United States; and (9) he had been paid to perform similar drug smuggling acts in

the past. See Case No. 12-CR-3254, Doc. No. 16. Clearly, there was a factual basis for

Cervantes’s guilty plea. It cannot be said that counsel’s performance was deficient or that

Cervantes suffered any prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700.

Third, Cervantes claims that counsel was ineffective because counsel did not provide

him an opportunity to allocute. However, at the sentencing hearing on October 30, 2012,

- 2 - 14-CV-00085-LAB

Case 3:14-cv-00085-LAB Document 2 Filed 07/31/14 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

the Court asked, “Mr. Cervantes, what do you have to say on your own behalf this morning?” 

(Trans. at 5:23-24.) Cervantes orally replied, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. Id. at

5-7. Again, counsel’s performance was not deficient and Cervantes did not suffer any

prejudice whatsoever. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700.

Fourth, Cervantes claims that counsel was ineffective by failing to file a timely notice

of appeal. This claim is simply wrong. On November 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit rejected

Cervantes’ direct appeal of the 80 month sentence he received and stated “[t]he 80-month

sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including not only Cervantes’s lack of prior convictions, but

also the large quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine involved in the offense, the fact

that Cervantes had imported drugs on four prior occasions, and the need for the sentence

to provide deterrence and promote respect for the law.” See Case No. 12-CR-3254, Doc.

No. 41. The sentence was therefore timely appealed and the Ninth Circuit reached the

merits of the arguments made by Cervantes’s counsel.

For the reasons given above, Cervantes’ motion to vacate his conviction and

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14-CV-00085-LAB

Case 3:14-cv-00085-LAB Document 2 Filed 07/31/14 Page 3 of 3