Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01174/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01174-0/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 

17cr3555-MMA 

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, 

v. 

JENNIFER HANEY, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 17cr3555-MMA 

Related Case No. 19cv1174-MMA 

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

VACATE AND CORRECT 

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 

[Doc. No. 60] 

 On March 22, 2018, Defendant Jennifer Haney was charged in a two-count 

Superseding Information with importing methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, 

United States Code, section 952 and 960. See Doc. No. 32. Defendant pleaded guilty to 

Count 2, and was sentenced to a mandatory minimum custodial term of sixty months. 

See Doc. Nos. 40, 54. Defendant now moves to vacate her conviction and correct her 

sentence pursuant to Title 28, section 2255, arguing that she received ineffective 

assistance of counsel and an unfair sentence. See Doc. No. 60. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. 

Case 3:19-cv-01174-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17cr3555-MMA 

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

Section 2255 provides that if a defendant’s motion, file, and records “conclusively 

show that the movant is entitled to no relief” the Court summarily may dismiss the 

motion without sending it to the United States Attorney for response. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(b). The rules regarding Section 2255 proceedings similarly state that the Court 

summarily may order dismissal of a 2255 motion without service upon the United States 

Attorney only “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any attached exhibits, 

and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief . . . .” 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Thus, when a movant fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or when the motion is incredible or 

patently frivolous, the district court may summarily dismiss the motion. Cf. United States 

v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989); Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 

526 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Defendant’s motion is subject to summary dismissal.1

 Defendant claims that the 

sentence she received is unfairly based on her past state convictions and her attorney 

provided ineffective assistance by agreeing with the prosecution regarding the sixtymonth custodial term.2

 See Doc. No. 60, 4-5. With respect to the first argument, the 

Court is statutorily required to consider a defendant’s “history and characteristics” at the 

time of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). This includes the defendant’s criminal 

history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. As noted above, Defendant pleaded guilty to importing 

methamphetamine in violation of Title 21, sections 952 and 960. See Doc. No. 32. 

                                               

1

 The Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the issues can be conclusively decided on the basis of 

the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977); see also United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 

F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a “district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing 

on a Section 2255 claim where the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to 

relief”). Here, a review of the record conclusively establishes that Defendant is not entitled to relief. 

Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is neither warranted nor required. 

2

 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel “extends to the plea-bargaining process.” Lafler v. Cooper, 

566 U.S. 156, 162 (2012). 

Case 3:19-cv-01174-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17cr3555-MMA 

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

Section 960 sets forth the range of penalties for violating section 952, which includes a 

five-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for an individual in Defendant’s 

position. See 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(2)(H). And in this case, Defendant’s prior convictions 

rendered her ineligible for any relief from the mandatory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that a “district 

court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence even if doing so ‘makes it impossible 

for the judge to impose a total sentence that the court considers reasonable.’” United 

States v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 1199, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. 

Washington, 462 F.3d 1124, 1140 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court lacked the authority to 

sentence Defendant to any lower custodial term. 

Defendant did not receive an incorrect sentence, nor did she receive ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Defense counsel submitted a detailed memorandum on her client’s 

behalf for the Court’s review prior to sentencing. See Doc. No. 48. Counsel advocated 

for the lowest possible custodial term in this case, the applicable statutory mandatory 

minimum of sixty months. Ultimately, defense counsel’s efforts were successful, not 

ineffective, and Defendant has not shown “that counsel’s assistance was not within the 

range of competence demanded of counsel in criminal cases.” Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 

F.3d 943, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-58 (1985). 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. 

The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Defendant has not 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to enter judgment accordingly in the related civil case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: July 5, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:19-cv-01174-MMA Document 2 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3