Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00811/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00811-0/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. 11CR2848WQH

CASE NO. 13CV811WQH

vs. ORDER

JOSE DE JESUS LOPEZ-ORTEGA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for time reduction by an inmate in federal

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 43) and the Request to be transferred to a facility

closer to home (ECF No. 41). Defendant moves the court to grant a downward departure on

the grounds that he is presently incarcerated in Folkston, Georgia and that he should not be

discriminated against because of his nationality.1

 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

1

 ECF No. 43 is not signed by the Defendant.

- 1 - 11cr2848WQH

Case 3:13-cv-00811-WQH Document 2 Filed 04/19/13 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

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

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 exchange for the Government’s concessions 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 greater than the

statutory maximum.” (ECF No. 28 at 9). 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). 

The Plea Agreement signed by the Defendant states in part: “Defendant understands that

the crime to which the Defendant is pleading carries the following penalties: a maximum of

4 years in prison.” (ECF No. 28 at 3). At the time of sentencing, the Government

recommended an adjusted offense level of 26 and a resulting guideline range of 70-87 months.

(ECF No. 35). The Government recommended a sentence of 48 months. (ECF No. 35). On

November 21, 2011, the Court imposed a sentence of 48 months. (ECF No. 38 at 2).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. There a no

2

 28 U.S.C. 2255 provides for a “1-year period of limitation.” This motion was filed on April

4, 2013. 

- 2 - 11cr2848WQH

Case 3:13-cv-00811-WQH Document 2 Filed 04/19/13 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

facts to suggest that the Defendant is being discriminated because of his nationality. The

Sentencing Reform Act gives the Bureau of Prisons the responsibility to “designate the place

of the prisoner’s imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See United States v. Cubillos, 91 F.3d

1342, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected the

assertion that an alien’s equal protection rights are violated when he cannot be housed in a

minimum security facility or a community correction center based upon his deportation status. 

See McClean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999). 

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

custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 43) and the Request to be transferred to a facility

closer to home (ECF No. 41) filed by the Defendant are denied.

DATED: April 19, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cr2848WQH

Case 3:13-cv-00811-WQH Document 2 Filed 04/19/13 Page 3 of 3