Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03199/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03199-0/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. 11cr3758 JM

CIVIL NO. 11cv3199 JM

ORDER DENYING MOTION

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. §2255

vs.

JOSE SIGIFREDO AGUIRREPALACIOS

Defendant.

On November 28, 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, DefendantJose Sigifredo

Aguirre-Palacios (“Defendant”), a non-United States citizen, pleaded guilty to one

count in the indictment for importation of 16.58 kilograms of cocaine in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§952 and 960. On February 3, 2012, the court sentenced Defendant to 37

months’ custody. On or about December 30, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to vacate

his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”). Defendant

contends that his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was violated when

counsel (1) failed to properly advise him of his constitutional rights; (2) incorrectly

determined that there was a factual basis for his guilty plea; (3) failed to provide him

with an opportunity to allocute at the time of sentencing; and (4) failed to file a notice

of appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the court summarily dismisses the Motion. 

- 1 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-03199-JM Document 2 Filed 01/13/14 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

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 2255 Review

Claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be based on a constitutional error,

a jurisdictional error, a defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or an unfair

procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84

(1979). Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[i]f it

plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior

proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the

motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” The court does not need to hold

an evidentiary hearing or obtain a response from the government. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255; United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). 

I. The Statute of Limitations

A one-year statute of limitation applies to motions brought under § 2255. “The

limitation period shall run from the later of (1) the date on which the judgment of

conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion

created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United

States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such

governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized

by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court

and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on

which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Here, the judgment became final 10 days after the later of (1) entry of this court’s

February 8, 2012 judgment or (2) the filing of the government’s notice of appeal where

the government is entitled to appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). As the plea agreement

preventsthe government frompursing an appeal, the court concludes that the judgment

became final on March 19, 2012, 10 days after entry of this court’s judgment. 

Consequently, the court dismisses the Motion as time-barred because Defendant filed

- 2 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-03199-JM Document 2 Filed 01/13/14 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

the Motion on December 30, 2013, after the statute of limitations had expired.

II. Waiver 

Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. Contract law

standards govern the validity of plea agreements. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d

1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1990). A defendant validly waives his appellate rights if the

language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised and he

knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive those rights. United States v. Rahman, 642

F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011). A waiver provision barring a defendant from seeking

collateral relief under a § 2255 motion is valid and enforceable. See United States v.

Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9thCir. 1993); see United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912

F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasoning the public policy of finality supports

upholding waivers in plea agreements). Defendant validly waived his right to

collaterally attack his sentence when he executed a plea agreement expressly waiving

his right to appeal or to 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. The waiver applies because, atsentencing, the court

imposed a sentence less than the recommended guideline range recommended by the

Government. The record reveals that Defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Accordingly, the court dismisses the Motion. 

III. The Merits

Defendant’s claims also fail on the merits. To prevail on an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s

performance was deficient; and (2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the

defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A petitioner must

demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an “objective standard of

reasonableness” and that, but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that

the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694. 

Here, Defendant fails to demonstrate either deficient performance or prejudice.

- 3 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-03199-JM Document 2 Filed 01/13/14 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

The plea agreement establishes the factual basis for the plea, that Defendant was

adequately advised and understood his constitutional rights, that there was no basis to

file a notice of appeal because he waived his right to appeal, and he was provided with

an opportunity to make a statement at the time ofsentencing but declined to do so. (Ct,

Dkt. 17; RT at p.1:2-9, February 3, 2012). Finally, the court imposed a sentence (37

months) far below the guideline range recommended by the Government (63 - 78

months) after counsel successfully argued in favor of a three-level downward departure

in favor of Defendant and for the purpose of avoiding an unwarranted sentencing

disparity. Under these circumstances no constitutional error occurred and there is no

prejudice. 

In sum, the court denies the Motion in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is

instructed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 4 - 12cr0442/13cv1853

Case 3:13-cv-03199-JM Document 2 Filed 01/13/14 Page 4 of 4