Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01971/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01971-0/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

17cr2520-LAB-1 and 18cv1971-LAB

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,

v.

GLORIA GOMEZ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cr2520-LAB-1 and 

18cv1971-LAB

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Defendant Gloria Gomez pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one 

count of importation of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. 

She imported over 24 kilograms of methamphetamine. On November 30, 2017, 

she was sentenced to 71 months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ 

supervised release. Her plea agreement waived appeal and collateral attack, 

except for ineffective assistance of counsel. (Docket no. 17 at 11:3–10.)1

 She did 

 

1 Specifically, the Plea Agreement provided that Gomez could only appeal a

custodial sentence above “the greater of 71 months or the statutory mandatory 

minimum term . . . .” (Docket no. 17 at 11:4–6.) She was sentenced to 71 months, 

which triggered the waiver provision. 

Case 3:18-cv-01971-LAB Document 2 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cr2520-LAB-1 and 18cv1971-LAB

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

not file an appeal, but instead filed a petition to vacate her sentence pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

To be entitled to a hearing, petitioner must allege specific facts which, if true, 

would entitle her to relief. United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 

1996). No hearing is required in order to examine vague or conclusory allegations. 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 72–73 (1977); United States v. Johnson, 988 

F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993). Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), if the records

and files and the petition itself conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to 

relief, no hearing is required.

Gomez’s petition raises several grounds for release. First, she asks the 

Court for a reduction in her sentence because she believes it was too harsh under 

the circumstances. The Court, however, has no authority to reconsider or modify 

its sentence at this point. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); Dolan v. United States, 560 

U.S. 605, 622–23 (2010) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 45(b)(2)).

Gomez argues she should have received the benefit of minor role at 

sentencing. She does not say whether she thinks her counsel was ineffective in 

failing to argue for this, or whether she thinks the Court should now take this into 

account and resentence her. Her counsel in fact did request and argue for 

downward departure for minor role. (See Docket no. 22 at 4:10–6:27 (Defendant’s 

Sentencing Memorandum).) If she believes the Court erred by not giving her the 

benefit of minor role, she has waived that claim; and even if she had not, she 

cannot challenge that by bringing a § 2255 petition. United States v. Schlesinger, 

49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir.1994) (non-constitutional sentencing errors are not 

cognizable on § 2255 review). But even if she is merely asking the Court to 

reconsider, the Court does not have authority to do so now. See § 3582(c); Dolan, 

560 U.S. at 622–23. Nor would the Court reconsider even if it could, in view of the 

amount of methamphetamine she imported: over 24 kilograms, which is gigantic 

even by border standards. See United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th 

Case 3:18-cv-01971-LAB Document 2 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cr2520-LAB-1 and 18cv1971-LAB

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

Cir.2001) (“Where drugs are present in significant quantities, that in itself is 

sufficient to deny a sentencing reduction [for minor role].”)

Gomez argues that she was denied a mental evaluation before signing her 

plea agreement. The only basis for such an evaluation that she has identified is 

severe depression, which she says she has never been treated for. Even assuming 

she was suffering from severe clinical depression at the time she decided to plead 

guilty, she does not identify any facts that would have made her decision anything 

other than knowing and voluntary. See Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1145–

46 (9th Cir. 2007) (claim that petitioner was suffering from depression when he 

pled guilty did not support a claim that his plea was involuntary). See also United 

States v. Torres, 697 Fed. Appx. 541, 541 (9th Cir. 2017) (§ 2255 petitioner’s “claim 

that he suffered from untreated depression when he pleaded guilty does not render 

his plea involuntary.”) Furthermore, the magistrate judge, who had an opportunity 

to observe her demeanor, found that she was competent to enter a plea, and that 

her guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. (Docket no. 18 at 4:7–9.) 

The only potentially appealable claim in Gomez’s petition is her fourth claim, 

for ineffective assistance of counsel. The facts offered in support of this claim are 

exceedingly thin, however:

I strongly feel that my attorney could have done more for me in my 

case. I didn’t know much of what was going on and she didn’t explain 

things to me so I can better understand them.

(Docket no. 17 (Petition) at 8.) Most criminal defendants do not understand court 

proceedings very well, and they often appear “intricate, complex, and mysterious” 

to non-lawyers, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 463 (1938), which is why counsel 

are appointed for them. Id. at 462–63; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344–

45 (1963). But attorneys do not need to explain every aspect of a case, or even 

most aspects, to their clients; they only need to explain as much as a client needs 

to know. Gomez has not pointed to any error by her attorney, much less an 

Case 3:18-cv-01971-LAB Document 2 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cr2520-LAB-1 and 18cv1971-LAB

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

unprofessional one. Conclusory claims such as this do not warrant relief. See 

United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir.1993). 

Besides failing to show that her counsel was incompetent, Gomez does not 

explain how she was unfairly prejudiced by anything her attorney did or failed to 

do. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 692 (1984) (holding that 

a defendant bringing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must show that his 

counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 

that it prejudiced him). See also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985) (applying 

Strickland test to guilty pleas based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel). 

The petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01971-LAB Document 2 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4