Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02808/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02808-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan Jose Castillo-Rodriguez,

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-2808-PHX-NVW (DKD)

AMENDED 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Juan Jose Castillo-Rodriguez filed an amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. He argues that he is entitled to relief because he 

had been promised that he would not be deported to Mexico in exchange for his 

cooperation with the United States government and so he should not be subject to 

removal proceedings. Respondent argues that his motion is untimely. As explained 

below, the Court recommends that this motion be denied. 

BACKGROUND

 In December 2009, Castillo-Rodriguez was removed from the United States. 

(Doc. 9-1, Ex. A at 7-8) In January 2011, Castillo-Rodriguez was voluntarily present and 

found in the United States without the express consent of the United States government. 

(Id.) On December 26, 2012, Castillo-Rodriguez signed an acknowledgment that he had 

received a “Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order” from the Department of 

Homeland Security. (Doc. 9-1, Ex. F) This form indicated that he was subject to an 

Case 2:14-cv-02808-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

order of deportation from 1989, that he was “subject to removal by reinstatement of the 

prior order.” (Id.) The form listed several aliases, including Mario Lopez Hernandez and 

Juan Castillo-Rodriguez. (Id.) The signature appears to say “Mario Lopez H” and there 

is a check in the box indicating that he did “not wish to make a statement contesting this 

determination.” (Id.) 

 In March 2013, Castillo-Rodriguez entered a plea of guilty to one count of reentry 

of a removed alien. (Doc. 9-2) Mario Lopez Hernandez is listed as an alias on his plea 

agreement. (Doc. 9-1, Ex. A at 1) On June 11, 2013, Castillo-Rodriguez was sentenced 

to 36 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. (Doc. 

9-3 at 6-7) His judgment was issued the following day. 2:13-CR-00254-NVW-1 at Doc. 

26. He did not appeal. (Doc. 4 at 2) On October 21, 2014, the United States Department 

of Homeland Security placed an immigration detainer on Castillo-Rodriguez. (Doc. 9-1, 

Ex. E) 

 On December 29, 2014, Castillo-Rodriguez filed his Section 2255 motion in this 

Court and on February 2, 2015, he filed an amended motion. (Docs. 1, 4) He argues that 

the October 2014 detainer was lodged in violation of a verbal agreement he had with U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Doc. 9-1, Ex. E) Respondent argues that 

Castillo-Rodriguez had notice of his possible deportation before he was sentenced and, 

therefore, this motion is untimely. 

ANALYSIS 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), Castillo-Rodriguez had to file his motion one year 

from the latest of four specified dates. Two of the possible deadlines are inapplicable to 

the facts of this case and Castillo-Rodriguez appears to acknowledge that his motion 

would be untimely under Section 2255(f)(1) which started the one year clock on “the date 

on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” Instead, he argues that his motion 

is timely because he falls under Section 2255(f)(4) which requires that the motion be filed 

within one year from the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (Doc. 4 at 13) 

Case 2:14-cv-02808-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Specifically, he argues that he only learned of the United States’ intent to deport him in 

October 2014, and so this is “the date on which the facts supporting the claim . . . 

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 

 Respondent argues that Castillo-Rodriguez knew of his possible deportation 

before October 2014 and so he is not entitled to claim that his motion is timely under 

Section 2255(f)(4). In support of this argument, Respondent points to an October 2011 

Immigration Detainer that was issued in the name of “Pedro Zorsa-Lopez aka Raul 

Lopez-Ortiz . . . (continued on I-831).” (Doc. 9-1, Ex. D) The I-831 continuation was 

not included in the record before the Court. Although Pedro Zorsa-Lopez appears as an 

alias on Castillo-Rodriguez’s plea agreement, there is no other link between this 

document and Castillo-Rodriguez and so this document is not enough to show that 

Castillo-Rodriguez had notice of his possible deportation.1

 However, the record also reflects that Castillo-Rodriguez acknowledged that he 

was subject to an order of deportation in December 2012. There appears to be no 

question that Castillo-Rodriguez signed this acknowledgement under an alias before he 

entered a plea and before he was sentenced. Moreover, during his plea colloquy, the 

Court had an extended conversation with Castillo-Rodriguez and his counsel about the 

possible immigration consequences of his plea. (Doc. 9-2 at 12-16) 

 Accordingly, Castillo-Rodriguez’s claim that he only learned of his possible 

deportation in October 2014 is unpersuasive. Because he knew of his possible 

deportation more than a year before he filed his motion, he is not entitled to relief under 

Section 2255(f)(4). As a result, his Section 2255 motion is untimely. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Juan Jose Castillo-Rodriguez’s 

Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. (Doc. 4) 

 

1

File numbers, subject IDs, and event numbers have all been redacted from the 

exhibits filed in this case. (Doc. 9-1, Exs. D, E, and F) 

Case 2:14-cv-02808-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have seven days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 19th day of August, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02808-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 4