Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00187/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00187-0/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. 12CR11WQH

CASE NO. 13CV187WQH

vs. ORDER

ANTONIO CHAVEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion pursuant to § 2255. (ECF No. 47). 

Defendant moves the court to vacate his conviction and remand to the district court for trial

on the following grounds: 1) the district court misapplied the guidelines when it imposed a

sixteen level enhancement; 2) the sentence imposed of 33 months is unreasonable punishment

for illegal reentry; and 3) the petitioner should receive a two level reduction for fast track. 

The Court finds that the issues raised in the petition are appropriate for summary disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without

jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which

- 1 - 12cr11WQH 

Case 3:13-cv-00187-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/29/13 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

imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” A district court must

summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[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.”

Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District courts. 

When this standard is satisfied, neither a hearing nor a response from the government is

required. See Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985).

 RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to

bring a § 2255 motion. In the plea agreement, the Defendant waived “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....”

(ECF No. 34 at 10). This waiver is clear, express and unequivocal. Plea agreements are

contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally be enforced if the agreement is

clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo, 298 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.

2005). 

In this case, the Government recommended an adjusted offense level of 19 pursuant to

the plea agreement and a resulting guideline range of 37-46 months. At the time of sentencing,

the Government recommended a sentence of 37 months. (ECF No. 39). The Court imposed

a sentence of 27 months. (ECF No. 46 at 2). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the

Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence imposed. 

Finally, the Defendant presents no grounds for relief under Section 2255. Defendant

has presented no colorable argument in support of his contention that his sixteen-level

enhancement was not appropriate under the advisory guidelines. Defendant received a twolevel downward departure for fast track and a sentence which was ten months below the low

end of the guidelines. It plainly appears from the motion and the record of prior proceedings

that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

- 2 - 12cr11WQH 

Case 3:13-cv-00187-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/29/13 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

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 47) filed by the Defendant is denied.

DATED: January 29, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cr11WQH 

Case 3:13-cv-00187-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 3