Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01109/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01109-0/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. 12CR3990WQH

CASE NO. 13CV1109WQH

vs. ORDER

CESAR ZAVALA-VASQUEZ,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence by a person in federal custody. (ECF No. 22). Defendant

moves the court to vacate his conviction and sentence on the grounds that “in order for

the Government to prosecute an alien with illegal reentry, the alien must be prosecuted

with illegal entry and then he can be prosecuted with illegal reentry.” (ECF No. 22)

The Court finds that the issues raised in the petition are appropriate for summary

disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established

by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence

was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the

court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in

excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack,

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

sentence.” A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly

- 1 - 12cr3990WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01109-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/23/13 Page 1 of 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

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).

 RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his

right to bring a § 2255 motion. In exchange for the Government’s concessions in the

plea agreement, the Defendant waived “to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal

or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence, except a post-conviction collateral

attack based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless the Court imposes

a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing.” (ECF No. 12 at 10). 

This waiver is clear, express 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, 298 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.

2005). 

At the time of sentencing, the Government recommended an adjusted offense

level of 17 and a resulting guideline range of 46-57 months. (ECF No. 19). The

Government recommended a sentence of 46 months. (ECF No. 19). The Court imposed

a sentence of 46 months. (ECF No. 21 at 2). Pursuant to the terms of the plea

agreement, the Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence imposed. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for time reduction by an inmate in

federal custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 22) filed by the Defendant is denied.

DATED: May 23, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cr3990WQH

Case 3:13-cv-01109-WQH Document 2 Filed 05/23/13 Page 2 of 2