Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01731/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01731-0/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

1 11cr2231 BTM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS GUILLERMO LEYVA-MESA,

Movant-Defendant,

Civ. Case No. 11cv1731 BTM

Crim. Case No. 11cr2231 BTM

v. ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

Defendant Luis Guillermo Leyva-Mesa has filed a motion to reduce his sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 28, 2011, pursuant to a Plea Agreement, Defendant entered a plea of guilty

to Count One of the Information (violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)).

On July 19, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to a 10-month term of imprisonment and

2 years of supervised release. Judgment was entered on July 26, 2011. 

II. DISCUSSION

In his motion, Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced because due

to his status as a deportable alien, he is ineligible for certain programs and benefits that are

available to United States citizens. 

Case 3:11-cv-01731-BTM Document 2 Filed 09/02/11 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

2 11cr2231 BTM

Defendant is barred from arguing for a reduction of his sentence under the terms of

the Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement provided that the sentence was within the sole

discretion of the sentencing judge and that Defendant understood that the sentencing judge

may impose the maximum sentence provided by statute. (Plea Agreement ¶ 9.) Defendant

and the Government agreed that Defendant’s Adjusted Offense Level was 8, but reached no

agreement on Criminal History Category. (Plea Agreement ¶¶ 4, 7. ) The parties agreed not

to recommend additional upward or downward departures, including sentence reductions

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. (Plea Agreement ¶ 5.) 

The Plea Agreement further provided: “In exchange for the Government’s concessions

in this plea agreement, defendant waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or

to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence . . . unless the Court imposes a custodial

sentence above the greater of the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing or statutory mandatory

minimum if applicable. “ (Plea Agreement ¶ 11) (emphasis added). 

The Government recommended a guideline range of 10 to 16 months based on the

Adjusted Offense Level of 8 and a Criminal History Category of IV. (Gov’t Sentencing

Summary Chart (Doc. No. 16).) The Court sentenced Defendant to the low-end of the

guideline range - 10 months.

At the sentencing hearing, the Court confirmed that Defendant understood that he was

waiving his right to collateral attack:

The Court: Based upon the sentence and these proceedings, do you waive

your right to ever appeal and attack the sentence and conviction, Mr. Leyva?

Defendant: Yes, sir.

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). If ineffective assistance of

counsel renders the plea agreement containing the waiver involuntary, the defendant may

appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 871

(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that “a plea agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas

Case 3:11-cv-01731-BTM Document 2 Filed 09/02/11 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

3 11cr2231 BTM

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is unenforceable with respect to an IAC claim that

challenges the voluntariness of the waiver”). See also Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing

“doubt” that such a waiver could be enforceable in a § 2255 context). 

Defendant does not argue that his attorney was ineffective in advising him regarding

the Plea Agreement or that his plea was otherwise involuntary. Accordingly, Defendant is

bound by the terms of the Plea Agreement and is precluded from mounting a collateral attack

on his sentence. Defendant’s motion is therefore denied.

Finally, even if the Court were to consider his claim it would be denied. Had defense

counsel sought a departure or sentence reduction on the grounds Defendant now suggests,

the Court would have denied it as it has done numerous times.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence is DENIED.

The Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 2, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01731-BTM Document 2 Filed 09/02/11 Page 3 of 3