Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01425/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01425-0/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. 13cr913 JM

CIVIL NO. 14cv1425 JM

ORDER DENYING MOTION

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. §2255

vs.

JOSE CHAVARRIA PEREZ,

Defendant.

On July 24, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, DefendantJose Chavarria Perez

(“Defendant”), a non-UnitedStates citizen, pleaded guilty to a single-count information

charging Defendant with importation of approximately 1331 kilograms of marijuana

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . On February 6, 2014, the

court sentenced Defendant to 70 months custody. On or about June 9, 2014, Defendant

filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(“Motion”). As the sole ground for Defendant’s Motion, Defendant indicates he has

“just learned of federal law that would allow [him] to apply for citizenship in the

United States of America” and “he would like to apply and become a citizen of this

country.” (Motion at 3). For the reasons set forth below, the court summarily

dismisses the Motion. 

Claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be based on a constitutional error,

- 1 - 11cr3758/13cv3199

Case 3:14-cv-01425-JM Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 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

a jurisdictional error, a defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or an unfair

procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84

(1979). Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[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, the judge must dismiss the

motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” The court does not need to hold

an evidentiary hearing or obtain a response from the government. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255; United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). 

“As a general rule, ‘[28 U.S.C.] § 2255 provides the exclusive procedural

mechanism by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of detention.’” Harrison

v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d

950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000)). “Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner claiming that his

sentence was imposed ‘in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States’ to

‘move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the

sentence.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). While recognizing Defendant’s desire to

become a United States citizen, Section 2255 is not the proper avenue for pursuing

citizenship in this country. Nor does Defendant’s current request to become a United

States citizen have any relationship to the legality of his imposed sentence. The

Motion does not contain any allegations of constitutional error, jurisdictional error,

defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or unfair procedure related to his sentence

such that relief would be warranted under Section 2255.

Moreover, Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence.

Contract law standards govern the validity of plea agreements. United States v. Keller,

902 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1990). A defendant validly waives his appellate rights

if the language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised and

he knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive those rights. United States v. Rahman,

642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011). A waiver provision barring a defendant from

seeking collateral relief under a Section 2255 motion is valid and enforceable. See

- 2 - 11cr3758/13cv3199

Case 3:14-cv-01425-JM Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 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

United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993); see United States v.

Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasoning the public policy of

finality supports upholding waiversin plea agreements). Defendant validly waived his

right to collaterally attack his sentence when he executed a plea agreement expressly

waiving his right to appeal or to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence unless

the court imposed a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range

recommended by the government. The waiver applies because, atsentencing, the court

imposed a sentence less than the recommended guideline range recommended by the

Government. The record reveals that Defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Accordingly, the court denies the Motion in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is

instructed to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cr3758/13cv3199

Case 3:14-cv-01425-JM Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 3