Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLANDO ARROYO-PALACIOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

No. CV-F 05-231 AWI

(No. CR-F 03-5103 AWI)

ORDER ON PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255

Petitioner Rolando Arroyo-Palacios (“Petitioner”) seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

from the sentences of 6 months and 24 months, to be served consecutively, that was imposed by

the court on February 17, 2004, following Petitioner’s entry of a plea of guilty to two counts of

illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a)(1), one misdemeanor and one felony. Petitioner filed this

application for relief on February 17, 2005. Petitioner’s requested relief will be denied.

Legal Standard

 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides, in pertinent part: “A prisoner in custody 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 ... may move

the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” Under § 2255,

“a district court must grant a hearing to determine the validity of a petition brought under that

section, ‘[u]nless the motions and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the

prisoner is entitled to no relief.’” United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.1994)

Case 1:05-cv-00231-AWI Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 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

As part of his plea agreement, Petitioner signed a waiver that expressly waived his right to challenge his 1

sentence through 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Such waivers are generally given effect, although there are exceptions. See

United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Johnson, 67 F.3d 200, 201-03 (9th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). For purposes of this order, the Court will

assume without deciding that the waiver does not bar this application. E.g., Baramdyka, 95 F.3d at 843; Meadows v.

United States, 420 F.2d 795 (9th Cir. 1969). 

2

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The court may deny a hearing if the movant’s allegations, viewed

against the record, fail to state a claim for relief or “are so palpably incredible or patently

frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal.” United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1159

(9th Cir.1996). Mere conclusory statements or statements that are inherently incredible in a §

2255 motion, however, are insufficient to require a hearing. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d

873, 879 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.1980). 

Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing is required if: (1) a petitioner alleges specific facts, which, if

true would entitle him to relief; and (2) the petition, files, and record of the case cannot

conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. Howard, 381 F.3d at 877. 

 Petitioner’s Argument

Petitioner contends his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment and the rule of Apprendi

and its progeny (specifically Blakely) because he did not admit to prior convictions nor did a jury

find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had prior convictions. Second, Petitioner contends the

sentence imposed was greater than the maximum guideline range. Third, and finally, Petitioner

requests any relief that may be available under Booker because the prior convictions were not

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Discussion1

Relief is not warranted. By its express terms, the rule of Apprendi and its progeny (that

any fact, other than a prior conviction, which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the

maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be

admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt) does not apply to the

fact of a prior conviction. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005); Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000);

United States v. Cruz-Escoto, 476 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2007); see also United States v.

Case 1:05-cv-00231-AWI Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 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

The allegations for this claim reads in its entirety, “The sentence is greater than the [sic] specified in the 2

applicable guideline range to the extent that the sentence includes a greater term of imprisonment than the maximum

establish [sic] in the guideline range.”

3

Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Further, it is unclear how Petitioner’s sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by 8

U.S.C. § 1325(a). That section in relevant part reads: “Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to

enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . .

shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or

imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such

offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or

both.” 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Petitioner was sentenced to 6 months in prison for count one, his

first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) which occurred on April 15, 1985. See Court’s Docket

Doc. No. 21 at ¶ V. Petitioner was also sentenced to 24 months in prison for count two, his

second violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1), which occurred on September 9, 1999. See id. 

Petitioner has not alleged specific facts that show how or why the sentence imposed exceeds the

maximum allowed. Conclusory statements are insufficient to warrant relief or obtain an

2

evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Howard, 381 F.3d at 879; Hearst, 638 F.2d at 1194.

Finally, nothing in Booker aides Petitioner since Booker expressly reaffirms the rule of

Apprendi, including that rule’s inapplicability to the fact of a prior conviction. Booker, 543 U.S.

at 244.

Because Petitioner makes only conclusory allegations and improperly relies on Apprendi

and its progeny, relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s requested relief under 28

U.S.C. § 225 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00231-AWI Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 Page 3 of 3