Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02021/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02021-0/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, CRIM CASE NO. 12cr2416WQHCIVIL CASE NO. 17cv2021WQH

ORDER

 v.

RAY JUNIOR DEL VILLAR,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

filed by Defendant Ray Junior Del Villar. (ECF No. 227). 

BACKGROUND FACTS

On September 25, 2012, Defendant Ray Junior Del Villar entered a plea of guilty

to Count One of an Indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Prior to sentencing, the

United States Probation Office recommended the 2-level upward adjustment in United

States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1 for aggravated role. At the time of sentencing,

Defendant opposed the application of this enhancement, the Government did not

recommend the application of this enhancement, and the Court did not impose this

enhancement. The Court stated: “[A]fter considering your objections and the entirety

of the record before me, I’ll sustain the objection and will not impose the plus two.” 

(ECF No. 235-1 at 3). The Court calculated the sentencing guideline range without

any enhancement for aggravating role to be 292 to 325 months. The Court stated: “I

- 1 - 12cr2416 WQH 

Case 3:17-cv-02021-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

an going to vary in this case from the 292 months under the 3553 factors. I am going

to vary to 168 months in custody.

On December 18, 2012, the Court entered judgment imposing a sentence of 168

months in custody. (ECF No. 81). 

On October 2, 2017, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on

the grounds that his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated “for illegally

being sentenced to leadership role” and his counsel was ineffective because counsel

made “no challenge to the illegality of the leadership role.” (ECF No. 227 at 3-4.)1

On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff United States filed a response. Plaintiff

contends that the motion should be denied on the grounds that the Court did not impose

any enhancement for aggravated role. 

RULING OF THE COURT

The record conclusively establishes that the Court did not impose any

enhancement for leadership role in calculating the guideline range. The record

conclusively establishes that the Court sustained the objection to the recommendation

of the United States Probation Office for a 2-level upward adjustment to United States

Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1 for aggravated role. The record conclusively

establishes that consideration of leadership role did not play a role in the sentence

imposed. There are no grounds to support a claim for ineffective counsel. Defendant

counsel opposed the recommendation of probation for a role enhancement and the

Court adopted the position taken by defense counsel.

/ / / 

1 The motion makes reference to “involuntary waiver of direct appeal.” (ECF No. 227

at 4). These claims appear directed to the Order filed by the Court of Appeals (ECF No. 228)

informing Petitioner that the dismissal of his appeal did not foreclose a motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. In the Plea Agreement, Petitioner

waived his right to “appeal or collaterally attack his sentence, except a post-conviction

collateral attack based upon ineffective assistance of counsel....” (ECF No. 49 at 9). 

- 2 - 12cr2416 WQH 

Case 3:17-cv-02021-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed

by Defendant Ray Junior Del Villar (ECF No. 227) is denied. The Clerk of the Court

shall enter Judgement against Defendant and close the related civil case. 

DATED: January 2, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cr2416 WQH 

Case 3:17-cv-02021-WQH Document 2 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3