Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02420/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02420-0/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 - 11cr2296/11cv2420

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cr2296 JM

CIVIL NO. 11cv2420 JM

ORDER DENYING MOTION

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. 2555

vs.

RANULFO FRAGOZA-MENDOZA,

Defendant.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, on September 23, 2011 Defendant Ranulfo Fragoza-Mendoza

(“Defendant”) pleaded guilty to being a deported alien found in the United States after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) and (b). On the same date, the court, pursuant to the plea agreement,

sentenced Defendant to 12 months’ custody, followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant

now moves to set aside, modify, or vacate the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (“Motion”).

Although not perfectly clear, Defendant contends that his status as a deported alien deprives him of

benefits under the United States Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, the court summarily

denies the Motion. 

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. §2255 Review

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

Case 3:11-cv-02420-JM Document 2 Filed 10/21/11 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 - 11cr2296/11cv2420

party.” In such an instance, the district court is not required to hold a hearing or to require a response

from the government. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Here, for the below stated reasons, the court finds the

motion without merit and therefore summarily denies the Motion.

Waiver of the Right to Collaterally Attack Sentence

Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. In the plea agreement defendant

specifically waived 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 guidelines range recommended

by the government. This waiver provision is enforceable to bar Defendant from seeking collateral

relief because Defendant was sentenced within the guideline range. See United States v. Abarca, 985

F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979 (1993). The plea agreement’s language clearly

embraces a waiver of any collateral attack on Defendant’s sentence, including a § 2255 motion. See

United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (finding that defendant

waived his right to appeal an incorrect application of Sentencing Guidelines even though the plea

agreement did not specifically mention this right; to find otherwise “would render the waiver

meaningless”). Furthermore, Defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of his waiver or

otherwise inform the court of any other reason to invalidate his waiver. The record reflects that

Defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendant

validly waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence and dismisses the Motion. 

The Merits of the Motion

Even if Defendant had not waived his right to attack his conviction and sentence, the Motion

fails on the merits. Defendant argues that, as a result of his deportable alien status, he is unable to

participate in programs that would entitle him to early release in violation of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument in

McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir.1999). There, the court held, “[E]xcluding prisoners with

detainers from participating in community-based treatment programs, and consequently from sentence

reduction eligibility, is at least rationally related to the BOP's legitimate interest in preventing

prisoners from fleeing detainers while participating in community treatment programs.” Id. at 1176.

Additionally, Defendant’s argument that the Court could depart downward because he is a deportable

Case 3:11-cv-02420-JM Document 2 Filed 10/21/11 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 - 11cr2296/11cv2420

alien is precluded by statute and current Ninth Circuit case law. By statute, the Court may depart

downward only if there are “aggravating or mitigating circumstances ... not adequately taken into

consideration by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit

has held that the threat of deportation is not a factor that the district court may consider for sentencing

purposes. United States v. Alvarez–Cardenas, 902 F.2d 734, 737 (9th Cir.1990). As all relevant

factors were taken in to consideration at the time of Defendant’s sentencing, the Motion is denied. 

In sum, the Motion is denied and the Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 21, 2011

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:11-cv-02420-JM Document 2 Filed 10/21/11 Page 3 of 3