Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02111/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02111-0/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

1 11cr980 BTM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL SANTANA-ZEPEDA,

Movant-Defendant,

Civ. Case No. 11cv2111 BTM

Crim. Case No. 11cr980 BTM

v. ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

Defendant Manuel Santana-Zepeda has filed a motion to reduce his sentence under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 4, 2011, pursuant to a Plea Agreement, Defendant entered a plea of guilty

to Count One of the Information (violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)).

On August 26, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to an 8-month term of imprisonment

and 2 years of supervised release. Judgment was entered on September 6, 2011. 

II. DISCUSSION

In his motion, Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced because due

to his status as a deportable alien, he is ineligible for certain programs and benefits that are

available to United States citizens. 

Case 3:11-cv-02111-BTM Document 2 Filed 10/06/11 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

2 11cr980 BTM

Defendant is barred from arguing for a reduction of his sentence under the terms of

the Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement provided that the sentence was within the sole

discretion of the sentencing judge and that Defendant understood that the sentencing judge

may impose the maximum sentence provided by statute. (Plea Agreement ¶ 9.) Defendant

and the Government agreed that Defendant’s Adjusted Offense Level was 8, but reached no

agreement on Criminal History Category. (Plea Agreement ¶¶ 4, 7. )

The Plea Agreement further provided: “In exchange for the Government’s concessions

in this plea agreement, defendant waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or

to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence . . . unless the Court imposes a custodial

sentence above the greater of the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing or statutory mandatory

minimum if applicable. “ (Plea Agreement ¶ 11) (emphasis added). 

The Government recommended a guideline range of 10 to 16 months based on the

Adjusted Offense Level of 8 and a Criminal History Category of IV. (Gov’t Sentencing

Summary Chart (Doc. No. 21).) The Court sentenced Defendant to 8 months, the sentence

requested by defense counsel.

At the sentencing hearing, the Court confirmed that Defendant understood that he was

waiving his right to collateral attack:

The Court: Have you waived your right to ever attack the sentence and

conviction?

Defendant: Yes.

A waiver of appeal and/or collateral attack of a conviction is enforceable if voluntarily

made. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994). If ineffective assistance of

counsel renders the plea agreement containing the waiver involuntary, the defendant may

appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is unenforceable with respect to an IAC claim that

challenges the voluntariness of the waiver”). See also Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing

Case 3:11-cv-02111-BTM Document 2 Filed 10/06/11 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

3 11cr980 BTM

“doubt” that such a waiver could be enforceable in a § 2255 context). 

Defendant does not argue that his attorney was ineffective in advising him regarding

the Plea Agreement or that his plea was otherwise involuntary. Accordingly, Defendant is

bound by the terms of the Plea Agreement and is precluded from mounting a collateral attack

on his sentence. Defendant’s motion is therefore denied.

Finally, even if the Court were to consider his claim it would be denied. Had defense

counsel sought a departure or sentence reduction on the grounds Defendant now suggests,

the Court would have denied it as it has done numerous times.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence is DENIED.

The Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02111-BTM Document 2 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3