Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05070/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

NO. CR-01-20067-RMW 1

E-filed on: 10/17/07 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

v.

RUBEN GARCIA-GONZALEZ,

Defendant/Movant.

NO. C-03-05070 RMW

Related to CR-01-20067-RMW 

ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET

ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (28

U.S.C. § 2255)

Ruben Garcia-Gonzalez seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from his conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Garcia-Gonzalez

pled guilty in accordance with a plea agreement. He originally asserted three bases for relief: (1) his

guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) he

is entitled to the benefit of the safety valve provision set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; and (3) his

attorney failed to file a notice of appeal after being requested to do so and this constituted ineffective

assistance of counsel. He has now added a fourth basis, namely that under Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004), his sentence was illegal because it was calculated on a drug quantity that had

not been found by a jury. 

Although Garcia-Gonzalez claims that his guilty plea was not knowingly or voluntarily

made, the only relief he seeks is to be re-sentenced. Memo of Pts. and Auths. at 23 (“Mr. Gonzales

seeks an order from this Honorable Court for remand for re-sentencing.”).

Case 5:03-cv-05070-RMW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 5
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 ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

NO. CR-01-20067-RMW 2

1. Was the Representation of Garcia-Gonzalez Ineffective Resulting in a Plea that Was

Not Knowingly and Voluntarily Made?

Garcia-Gonzalez asserts his plea was not voluntary because his attorney advised him that he

would challenge some purported incriminating tapes and show that the government was wrong in

asserting that they reflected Garcia-Gonzalez’s voice. Counsel never challenged the tapes. He also

claims that his attorney had advised him that the longest sentence he would receive was 90 months

and that he would entitled to relief under the “safety valve” provision authorized by U.S.S.G. §

5C1.2 because he had no prior convictions. Garcia-Gonzalez claims his plea was not voluntary

because he relied upon being sentenced based upon accurate information.

In order to prevail on a Sixth Amendment ineffectiveness of counsel claim, petitioner must

establish two things. First, he must establish that counsel's performance was deficient, i.e., that it

fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” under prevailing professional norms. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). Second, he must establish that he was

prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance, i.e., that "there is a reasonable probability that, but

for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at

694. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 

Id.

Even assuming that counsel advised Garcia-Gonzalez as Garcia-Gonzalez claims, he was not

prejudiced. In the plea colloquy with the court, Garcia-Gonzalez was advised by the court that the

court did not have to follow the sentencing recommendations of either the government or his

attorney, that he would be “stuck with whatever sentence the court gives you, and you’re not going

to be able to complain about it,” (R.T. 10/25/02, 8:5-7), and that there was a ten year minimum

sentence that must be imposed (“Q. Are you aware that there’s also a ten year minimum sentence

that must be imposed? A. I understand that, your honor.” Id. at 13:5-8). In addition, GarciaGonzalez specifically admitted his guilt, which he has never denied. He only contests the extent of

his involvement in the conspiracy. Since Garcia-Gonzalez’s guilt is not in question and the

government clearly had the evidence to convict him, he was not prejudiced in making his plea by

any alleged ineffective assistance.

Case 5:03-cv-05070-RMW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 5
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 ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

NO. CR-01-20067-RMW 3

2. Was Garcia-Gonzalez Entitled to the Benefit of the Safety Valve Provision Set Forth

in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2?

Under the plea agreement Garcia-Gonzalez entered into with the government, he waived any

right to appeal his sentence and any right to collaterally attack his sentence with only the exception

of an attack based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Plea Agmt. ¶¶ 4-5. This waiver was

specifically discussed with Garcia-Gonzalez in his plea colloquy with the court. R.T. 10/25/01 at

7:21-8:8 R.T. Therefore, the question is whether counsel was ineffective in his representation of

Garcia-Gonzalez by not adequately presenting his request for application of the safety valve. The

issue at sentencing with respect to the application of the safety valve was whether Garcia-Gonzalez

had “provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the

offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.”

U.S.S.G. 5C1.2. Trial counsel had met with his client and the lead agent involved before the

sentencing hearing for a debriefing, cross-examined the lead agent at the sentencing hearing and

argued strenuously for the application of the provision. Garcia-Gonzalez complains that he wanted

an additional hearing which the court suggested it would give him if he wanted. He claims he told

his attorney that he wanted such a hearing but that his attorney declined. Despite the fact that he

claims he told his attorney that he wanted a hearing, he said nothing when his attorney advised the

court immediately after conferring with Garcia-Gonzalez that “we are not requesting an additional

hearing.” R.T. 7/29/02 at 12:10-13:13. It seems clear that trial counsel made a strategic decision not

to have his client testify in light of questions about the extent of his involvement and truthfulness. In

any event, Garcia-Gonzalez has offered nothing that suggests that the court’s decision on the safety

valve’s application would have been different if an additional hearing had been held. The court

concludes that counsel’s representation on the safety valve issue did not fall below the standard of

care, and that, in any event, Garcia-Gonzalez suffered no prejudice. 

3. Did Trial Counsel Provide Ineffective Assistance of Counsel by Failing to File a

Notice of Appeal after Allegedly Being Requested to Do So?

As mentioned above, the plea agreement contains a waiver of the right to appeal and the

court went over the provision with Garcia-Gonzalez in its colloquy. Plea Agmt. ¶ 4, R.T. 10/25/01

Case 5:03-cv-05070-RMW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 5
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 ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

NO. CR-01-20067-RMW 4

at 7:21-8:8. Although an attorney probably has the obligation to see that an appeal gets filed if his

client requests it, even if the appeal is precluded by the plea agreement, no prejudice resulted here. 

There is nothing that suggests an appeal would have been successful.

4. Does Blakely v. Washington Have Any Application?

Garcia-Gonzalez argues that Blakely v. Washington mandates that the prosecutor prove to a

jury drug quantities essential to the punishment provided for by statute. Garcia-Gonzalez’s

conviction was final at the time of the Blakely decision. Therefore, the contention is without merit

as Blakely does not apply retroactively. See Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005). 

In addition, in the plea colloquy, Garcia-Gonzalez specifically admitted that more than 500 grams of

methamphetamine were involved. R.T. 10/25/01 at 13:5-8.

For the reasons stated, the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.

DATED: 10/17/07

_______________________________

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05070-RMW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 5
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 ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

NO. CR-01-20067-RMW 5

Copy of Order mailed on 10/17/07 to:

Ruben Garcia-Gonzalez

Reg. No. 99515-111

Federal Correction Institution

3600 Guard Road

Lompoc, CA 93436

John Glang

Assistant U.S. Attorney

150 Almaden Blvd.

San Jose, CA 95113

Case 5:03-cv-05070-RMW Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 5 of 5