Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02066/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02066-0/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 

3:14-cr-02460

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 

JESSICA LIZETH VARGAS 

MARISCAL, 

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 3:14-cr-02460 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 32] 

On August 15, 2016, Jessica Lizeth Vargas Mariscal (“Petitioner”) proceeding pro 

se, filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct her sentence 

requesting a downward adjustment in her sentence based on her minor role in the offense. 

 [Doc. 32]. The government filed a response in opposition on September 19, 2016. [Doc. 

35.] The Court has reviewed the record and submissions of the parties. For the reasons 

stated below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 

I. DISCUSSION 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may move the court that imposed her 

sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence if it “was imposed in violation of the 

Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-L Document 2 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
 2 

3:14-cr-02460

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

impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by 

law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To warrant relief 

under § 2255, a petitioner must allege a “lack of jurisdiction or constitutional error, 

[because] an error of law will not provide a basis for habeas relief unless that error 

‘resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or in a proceeding inconsistent with the 

rudimentary demands of fair procedure.’” Hamilton v. United States, 67 F.3d 761, 763-64 

(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783–84 (1979)). 

As a preliminary matter, Petitioner’s motion is time barred. Motions under 

§2255 have a one year period of limitation. 28 U.S.C. 2255(f). Here, the Court 

sentenced Petitioner on December 8, 2014 and Petitioner filed the pending motion 

on August 15, 2016. However, even if Petitioner were able to show that her 

Petition is timely, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider her collateral challenge 

to her sentence because she waived her appellate and collateral attack rights. 

As part of her plea agreement, Petitioner waived both the right to appeal and 

the right to collaterally attack the judgment and sentence. Because Petitioner does 

not challenge the validity of the waiver, nor call into doubt the effectiveness of her 

counsel’s assistance regarding her decision to enter into the agreement, the Court 

finds that the waiver should be enforced. 

A knowing and voluntary waiver of a statutory right is enforceable. United 

States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1990). The right to 

collaterally attack a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is statutory in nature, and a 

defendant may therefore waive the right to file a § 2255 petition. See, e.g., United 

States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993) (by entering plea agreement 

waiving right to appeal sentencing issues, defendant relinquished his right to seek 

collateral relief from his sentence on the ground of newly discovered exculpatory 

evidence). 

The scope of a § 2255 waiver, however, may be subject to potential 

limitations. For example, a defendant’s waiver will not bar an appeal if the trial 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-L Document 2 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
 3 

3:14-cr-02460

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

court did not satisfy certain requirements under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure to ensure that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. 

Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d at 321. Such a waiver might also be ineffective where 

the sentence imposed is not in accordance with the negotiated agreement, or if the 

sentence imposed violates the law. Id.; United States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 

528 (9th Cir. 1996). Finally, a waiver may not “categorically foreclose” 

defendants from bringing § 2255 proceedings involving ineffective assistance of 

counsel or involuntariness of waiver. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014; United States 

v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In this case, none of these potential limitations to the validity of Petitioner’s 

waiver are applicable. Petitioner does not raise any challenges to the knowing and 

voluntary nature of her plea. The plea agreement contains a provision certifying 

that Petitioner read the agreement (or had it read to her in her native language) and 

that Petitioner discussed its terms with her defense counsel and fully understood its 

meaning and effect. [Doc. 20, at 11-12.] It also contains a provision certifying that 

the plea was knowing and voluntary. [Id. at 5-6.] Petitioner was sentenced to the 

low end of the range recommended by the government. [Docs. 26, 29.] 

Accordingly, Petitioner's waiver applies and this Court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider her Petition. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th 

Cir.2005).

Secondly, the sentence imposed by the Court was in accordance with the 

negotiated agreement, and in accordance with the applicable sentencing guidelines. 

On September 11, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to a single count of importation of 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. [Doc. 20]. On 

December 8, 2014, this Court sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 41 

months, followed by three years of supervised release. [Doc. 28]. The applicable 

base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1for that quantity of controlled substances 

is 33. In arriving at Petitioner’s sentence, the Court granted a 2-level downward 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-L Document 2 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
 4 

3:14-cr-02460

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

adjustments to the base offense level for safety valve and another 2-level 

downward adjustment for minor role. In addition, the Court granted a 3-level 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility as recommended by the parties under the 

terms of the Plea Agreement. The Court awarded a 4-level downward adjustment 

for Fast Track, bringing the total offense level to 22, with a criminal history of 

category I. Accordingly, the Court sentenced Petitioner to a 41-month sentence of 

imprisonment, which represented the low-end of the 41 to 51 month sentencing 

range established by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, although the 

Court was not bound by the Plea Agreement, the Court followed its terms and the 

resulting sentence was in accordance with both the terms of the negotiated 

agreement and the applicable sentencing guidelines. 

Finally, Petitioner does not dispute the effectiveness of her counsel’s 

assistance regarding her decision to enter into the Plea Agreement. Therefore, the 

Court finds that none of the recognized limitations of a defendant’s waiver of the 

right to bring a § 2255 motion are present in this case. Accordingly, the collateral 

attack waiver provision in Petitioner’s Plea Agreement will be enforced.

Even assuming Petitioner had not waived her right to collaterally attack her 

sentence, Petitioner requests a downward adjustment in her sentence based on her 

minor role in the offense. Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a court may decrease an 

offense level by two if the defendant had a minor role in the criminal activity. In 

support of a downward adjustment, Petitioner cites to United States v. QuinteroLeyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) and U.S.S.G. Amendment 794. Petitioner 

argues Amendment 794 applies retroactively to her case and that, when the 

Amendment is applied, she is entitled to a reduction in her sentence. On November 

1, 2015, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794, which 

added five, non-exhaustive factors that courts should consider when determining 

whether to grant a minor role reduction. U.S.S.G. App. C. Amend. 794. The 

Commission also amended § 3B1.2’s commentary to allow for a broader and more 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-L Document 2 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
 5 

3:14-cr-02460

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

uniform application of the mitigating role sentencing factor. Id. In United States v. 

Quintero-Leyva, the Ninth Circuit held Amendment 794 is a “clarifying 

amendment” and “applies retroactively to direct appeals.” United States v. 

Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522-23 (9th Cir. 2016). During sentencing, this 

Court granted Petitioner a two-level minor role reduction under § 3B1.2, therefore, 

she has already received the relief she request. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is 

denied.1

II. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion to vacate, set 

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2017 

                                              

1

 Petitioner is not barred from filing a motion for relief of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, however, as 

mentioned above, the Court already granted a two-level downward adjustment for Petitioner’s minor 

role under § 3B1.2. 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-L Document 2 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5