Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01132/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01132-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Pedro Isaac Martinez, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-01132-PHX-SRB

 CR-11-00248-PHX-SRB 

ORDER 

 The Court now considers Petitioner Pedro Isaac Martinez’s Motion Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. 

(Doc. 1, Mot.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade for a Report 

and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Motion be denied. (Doc. 10, Report and Recommendation (“R & 

R”).) She further recommended denying a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner filed his objections to the Report 

and Recommendation. (Doc. 13, Obj. to R & R.) Having reviewed the record de novo, 

the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies the Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The background of this case was summarized in the Report and Recommendation 

and is incorporated herein: 

 In December 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Attempted Armed Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (Count 1 of the second superseding indictment), 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

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 

four counts of Armed Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) 

and (c) (Counts 3, 7, 9, and 11 of the second superseding indictment), one count of Interference with Commerce by Violence, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1951 (Count 1 of the indictment in the District of Nevada case 

CR-11-394-KJD-CWH, transferred to the District of Arizona as CR-11-

2367-PHX-SRB (the Nevada case)), and Use of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i, ii, iii) (Count 6 of 

the second superseding indictment). (CR Doc. 75.) In exchange for Defendant’s plea, the government dismissed counts 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 of 

the second superseding indictment.1

 (CR Doc. 75 at 3; CR Doc. 74 at 1.) 

 On June 4, 2012, the Court sentenced Defendant to a 300-month 

term of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. (Doc. 74.) Specifically, the Court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ 

imprisonment on Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11 in the second superseding indictment (CR Doc. 74 at 1), and on Count 1 of the Nevada case,2

 and to 

120 months’ imprisonment on Count 6 in the second superseding indictment. (Id. at 1.) The Court ordered that the sentences on Counts 1, 3, 

7, 9, 11 and Count 1 of the Nevada case run concurrently with each other, and that the sentence on Count 6 run consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11 and in Count 1 of the Nevada case. 

(Id.) 

(R & R at 1-2.) 

 Petitioner timely filed the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In this Motion, Petitioner raised four arguments: (1) his 

sentences violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and were 

erroneously calculated because he received improper weapon enhancements that resulted 

in double counting, in violation of Amendment 599 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

(“USSG”); (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to 

object to the sentencing guideline range and failed to provide him with a copy of the presentence investigation report (“PSR”); (3) his right to due process was violated when the 

Probation Office failed to provide him with a copy of the PSR before being sentenced; 

 

1

 Counts 2, 4, 8, and 10 of the second superseding indictment charged Petitioner with use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(I, ii), in relation to the charges of attempted armed robbery in Count 1 (attempted armed robbery on Sept. 25, 2010), and armed robbery in Count 3 (armed robbery on Sept. 30, 2010), Count 7 (armed robbery on Nov. 1, 2010), and Count 9 

(armed robbery on Nov. 5, 2010). (CR Doc. 23.) Count 5 of the second superseding indictment charged Defendant with armed robbery on October 26, 2010. (Id.) 

2

 The judgment in the Nevada case, transferred to Arizona as CR-11-2367-PHXSRB, is located at Doc. 32 in that case. 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

and (4) the waiver of his right to collaterally attack his sentence under the plea agreement 

is moot because “fundamental errors” occurred at sentencing. (Mot. at 5-6.) The Report 

and Recommendation concluded that each of Petitioner’s grounds lacked merit and 

recommended that the Court deny the Motion. (R & R at 3-17.) Petitioner timely filed 

objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS 

 A federal prisoner may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if his sentence was 

“imposed in violation of the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States, 

. . . was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). When a prisoner moves for post-conviction relief, the court 

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 

made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a petitioner files timely objections to 

the magistrate’s report and recommendation, the district court must make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made. Id.; see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating that the district court is not 

required “to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 

accept as correct”). 

A. Ground 1: Double Jeopardy and Double Counting 

In his Motion, Petitioner argued that because Count 5 (armed bank robbery 

occurring on October 26, 2010) was dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement, the 

remaining charges for attempted armed bank robbery and armed bank robbery (Counts 1, 

3, 6, 9 and 11, and Count 1 in the Nevada case) were combined and served as the 

underlying offense for Count 6 (brandishing and discharging a firearm during a crime of 

violence on October 26, 2010, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). (Mot. at 5, 10-16.) 

Petitioner argued that because these charges were combined and served as the underlying 

offense to Count 6, he should not have received weapon enhancements on Counts 1, 3, 6, 

9 and 11, and Count 1 in the Nevada case, as such enhancements constitute double 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

punishment and double counting, in violation of Amendment 599 of the USSG. (Id. at 

10-16.) 

 The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner’s sentence did not violate 

Amendment 599 or otherwise result in double counting or double punishment. The 

Magistrate Judge specifically concluded that although Count 5 was dismissed pursuant to 

a plea agreement, Petitioner admitted to facts of the armed robbery on October 26, 2010 

in the plea agreement and thus the government proved the underlying offense to Count 6. 

(R & R at 6 n.7 (citing United States v. Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 734 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(stating that it is not necessary for a defendant charged with a § 924(c) offense be 

separately charged and convicted of the underlying offense)).) The Magistrate Judge 

concluded that because Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11, and Count 1 of the Nevada case were 

not related to the conduct underlying Count 6, the weapon enhancement for each count 

did not violate Amendment 599 or result in double punishment, in violation of the 

Double Jeopardy Clause . (Id. at 6-7.) 

 Petitioner objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, arguing that the 

Magistrate Judge misapplied the relevant sentencing guidelines, statutes, and case law in 

her analysis of his sentencing. (Obj. to R & R at 2-9.) Petitioner reiterates his argument 

that his plea agreement “consolidated” his § 924(c) charge and Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11, 

and Count 1 of the Nevada case, and therefore the weapon enhancement for each charge 

violated Amendment 599. (Id. at 4-5.) To support this conclusion Petitioner argues that 

the “literal language of Amendment 599 implies that the underlying offense must be 

conjoined with the 924(c) conviction so that it may subsume all weapons enhancements.” 

(Id. at 7.) Petitioner argues that based on the “structure of [his] plea agreement” and the 

fact that Count 5 was dismissed, the remaining counts were combined to serve as the 

“underlying offense” to his § 924(c) charge and thus he should not have received weapon 

enhancements for those remaining charges. (Id. at 4-5.) 

 After conducting a de novo review, the Court concludes that the Report and 

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Amendment 599 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

modified the USSG applicable to § 924(c) offenses. See USSG § 2K2.4. The amended 

application note states: 

If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence 

for an underlying offense, do not apply any . . . weapon enhancement in the 

guideline for the underlying offense, [but, for example,] . . . if a defendant 

is convicted of two armed bank robberies, but is convicted under 18 U.S.C. 

924(c) in connection with only one of the robberies, a weapon enhancement would apply to the bank robbery which was not the basis for the 18 U.S.C. 

924(c) conviction.

Id. § 2K2.4 n.4. While Petitioner argues that Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11, and Count 1 of the 

Nevada case must have been consolidated to satisfy the “underlying offense” element of 

his § 924(c) charge, there is no evidence in the record supporting that conclusion. While 

the government must prove that a defendant charged with violating § 924(c) committed 

an underlying crime, “nothing in the statute or the legislative history suggests he must be 

separately charged with and convicted of the underlying offense.” United States v. 

Hunter, 887 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 

120, 125 (2000) (citing S. Rep. No. 98-225, pp. 312-314 (1984) (“Section 924(c) sets out 

an offense distinct from the underlying felony and is not simply a penalty provision.”)). 

In this case, Petitioner admitted to facts of the October 26, 2010 armed robbery (Count 

5). (United States v. Martinez, 2:11-CR-00248-SRB, Doc. 75, Plea Agreement at 8.) 

Although Count 5 was dismissed, Petitioner’s admission was sufficient to establish that 

Petitioner committed an underlying crime of violence to support his § 924(c) conviction. 

Because Petitioner’s admission to Count 5 supported his § 924(c) charge, the record does 

not support Petitioner’s argument that Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and Count 1 of the Nevada 

case were consolidated to serve as the underlying offense. Because these charges did not 

support his § 924(c) charge, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the weapon 

enhancements for these charges did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or 

Amendment 599. 

B. Ground 2: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

In his Motion, Petitioner argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel 

when his attorney (1) failed to object to the PSR sentencing calculation, and (2) failed to 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

provide Petitioner with a copy of the PSR. (Mot. at 5.) The Magistrate Judge concluded 

that Petitioner had failed to show that trial counsel’s performance was deficient on either 

theory. (R & R at 8-11.) While Petitioner indicates that he disagrees with some of the 

Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, he states that he ultimately “concur[s] with [the] R & 

R [that] if Ground 1 was meritless then the PSR is irrelevant and it was inconsequential 

whether I reviewed it or not.” (Obj. to R & R at 11.) Because the Court determined that 

no double counting or double punishment occurred in the PSR’s calculation of 

Petitioner’s sentence, the Court concludes that Petitioner has no objection to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings that counsel’s performance was not deficient. The Court 

accepts the Magistrate Judge’s findings with respect to Petitioner’s ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim. 

C. Ground 3: Due Process 

 In his Motion, Petitioner argued that his due process right was violated because (1) 

he was not provided with “evidence favorable to [Petitioner],” which inhibited his ability 

to object to the PSR, and (2) he was not provided with a copy of the PSR before 

sentencing, in violation of USSG § 6A1.2 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. 

(Mot. at 17-18.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that the record shows that Petitioner 

was not denied access to “evidence favorable to [Petitioner]” that inhibited his ability to 

challenge the PSR. (R & R at 12 n.11). Petitioner does not object to this finding. The 

Magistrate Judge also concluded that because the record shows that Petitioner’s attorney 

had read him the PSR and discussed it with him, there was no USSG § 6A1.2 or Rule 32 

violation. (Id. at 13-14.) Petitioner again states that he “concur[s] if [G]round 1 is 

meritless then the PSR is irrelevant and no Rule 32 violation occurred.” Thus, the Court 

concludes that Petitioner has no objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings on this 

ground and the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s findings with respect to Petitioner’s 

due process claim. 

D. Ground 4: Waiver of Right to Bring Collateral Attack 

 In his Motion, Petitioner argued that the he did not validly waive his right to seek 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

collateral review of his sentences because “fundamental error[s]” occurred prior to 

sentencing. (Mot. at 6.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that because the other 

challenges raised in the Motion lacked merit, Petitioner had failed to establish that any 

“fundamental error” occurred prior to sentencing. (R & R at 17.) The Magistrate Judge 

concluded that Petitioner had effectively waived his right to collaterally attack his 

sentences. (Id.) 

 Petitioner does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that no “fundamental 

error” occurred. However, Petitioner does argue for the first time in his objections that his 

appeal waiver was involuntary because of ambiguities in the plea agreement and because 

his sentence was not consistent with the plea agreement. (Obj. to R & R at 12-15.) 

Because these grounds were not raised in the Motion or any of the briefing, the 

Magistrate Judge had no occasion to consider them. Generally, the Court is not required 

to address arguments raised for the first time in objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report. 

See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the Court’s 

de novo review of the record shows clear evidence that Petitioner understood the waiver 

and entered his plea knowing that he would not be permitted to appeal or collaterally 

attack his conviction and sentence, so long as his sentence was consistent with his plea 

agreement. (See Martinez, 2:11-CR-00248-SRB, Doc. 78, Tr. of Sentencing Proceedings 

at 19-20 (showing that Petitioner answered affirmatively when the Court asked if he 

understood that he waived his rights to appeal in his plea agreement).) Further, 

Petitioner’s sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment and order to pay $16,149.00 in 

restitution were consistent with his plea agreement. (See Plea Agreement at 2-3 (showing 

that the parties stipulated that Petitioner shall be sentenced between 240 and 300 months’ 

imprisonment and pay restitution in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00).) The Court 

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner validly waived his right to appeal or seek 

collateral review of his sentence. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Having reviewed the record de novo, the Court concludes that the Report and 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court adopts the 

Report and Recommendation and denies the Motion. 

IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendations (Doc. 13). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

10).

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and 

closing the case.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-SRB Document 14 Filed 11/03/14 Page 8 of 8