Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01378/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01378-0/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 

SC 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sergio Gonzalez-Torres, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 13-1378-PHX-DGC (MEA) 

 CR 10-0377-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 Movant Sergio Gonzalez-Torres, who is confined in the Adams County 

Correctional Institution in Washington, Mississippi, has filed a pro se Motion Under 28 

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

The Court will summarily dismiss the § 2255 Motion. 

I. Procedural History 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A)(viii). The plea agreement contained no agreements regarding the final sentence 

in the case, but provided that the government would recommend a 2-level downward 

adjustment under § 3B1.2(b) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) and would 

recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable USSG range. On November 24, 

2010, the Court sentenced Movant to a 120-month term of imprisonment followed by five 

years on supervised release. 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 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 

 Movant seeks a reduction of his sentence. He argues that he should have received 

the benefit of the “Safety Valve” provision. 

II. Summary Dismissal

 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); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 

1982). In this case, the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is 

warranted because Movant has waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. 

III. Waiver 

 Movant has waived challenges to his sentence. The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has found that there are “strict standards for waiver of constitutional rights.” 

United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2005). It is 

impermissible to presume waiver from a silent record, and the Court must indulge every 

reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. United 

States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004). In this action, Movant’s waiver 

was clear 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, 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory 

right to bring a § 2255 action challenging the length of the sentence. United States v. 

Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 

(9th Cir. 1992). The only claims that cannot be waived are claims that the waiver itself 

was involuntary or that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver involuntary. 

See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a plea 

agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas petition pursuant to § 2254 is 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 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 

unenforceable with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that challenges 

the voluntariness of the waiver); Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing doubt that a plea 

agreement could waive a claim that counsel erroneously induced a defendant to plead 

guilty or accept a particular plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 (expressly declining 

to hold that a waiver forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the 

waiver); see also Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1156 n.4 (declining to decide whether waiver of 

all statutory rights included claims implicating the voluntariness of the waiver). 

 “Collateral attacks based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are 

characterized as falling outside [the category of ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver] are waivable.” United States v. 

Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001). See also Williams v. United States, 

396 F.3d 1340, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) (joining the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and 

Tenth Circuits in holding that “a valid sentence-appeal waiver, entered into voluntarily 

and knowingly, pursuant to a plea agreement, precludes the defendant from attempting to 

attack, in a collateral proceeding, the sentence through a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during sentencing.”). 

 As part of Movant’s plea agreement, Movant made the following waiver: 

 Providing the defendant’s sentence is consistent with this agreement, 

the defendant waives (1) any and all motions, defenses, probable cause 

determinations, and objections that the defendant could assert to the 

indictment or information; and (2) any right to file an appeal, any 

collateral attack, and any other writ or motion that challenges the 

conviction, an order of restitution or forfeiture, the entry of judgment 

against the defendant, or any aspect of the defendant’s sentence, 

including the manner in which the sentence was determined, including 

but not limited to any appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and motions under 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255. The defendant acknowledges that if the 

Court has sentenced the defendant according to the terms of this 

agreement, this waiver shall result in the dismissal of any appeal, 

collateral attack, or other motion the defendant might file challenging 

the conviction, order of restitution or forfeiture, or sentence in this 

case.

Case 2:13-cv-01378-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 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 

(Doc. 33 at 4) (emphasis added). Movant indicated in the plea agreement that he had 

discussed the terms with his attorney, agreed to the terms and conditions, and entered into 

the plea voluntarily. (Id. at 6-8.) 

 Movant’s assertions in the § 2255 Motion all pertain to sentencing and not to the 

voluntariness of the waiver. Movant expressly waived issues regarding the imposition of 

sentence and expressly waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. The Court accepted 

the plea as voluntarily made. Consequently, the Court finds that Movant waived the 

sentencing issues raised in the § 2255 Motion. Thus, the Court will summarily dismiss 

the § 2255 Motion. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence (Doc. 39 in CR 10-0377-PHX-DGC) is denied and the civil action opened in 

connection with this Motion (CV 13-1378-PHX-DGC (MEA)) is dismissed with 

prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 (2) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 1st day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 4 of 4