Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00045/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00045-0/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. 11cr5308-LAB-1 and

14cv45-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

JAMES JAVIER LOPEZ,

Defendant.

On January 11, 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant James Javier Lopez

pled guilty importation of heroin. On April 19, 2012, after receiving the benefit of acceptance

of responsibility and fast track, he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 120

months.

Lopez, proceeding pro se, then filed an appeal on August 16, 2012. The Ninth Circuit,

on his own motion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. Then on January 6, 2014, he filed a

motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The motion is untimely under § 2255(f) because his conviction became final fourteen

days after entry of judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), and the filing of a late appeal

did not prevent Lopez’s conviction from becoming final then, nor did it extend § 2255(f)’s

one-year limitations period. See Estrada-Ambriz v. UnitedStates, 2012WL 3879925, at *2–3

(E.D.Cal., Sept. 6, 2012) (citing Randle v. Crawford, 604 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9 Cir. 2010); th

United States v. Buckles, 647 F.3d 883, 889 (9 Cir. 2011)). The date Lopez’s conviction th

- 1 - 11cr5308 and 14cv45

Case 3:14-cv-00045-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/04/14 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

became final was the latest of the four events listed in § 2255(f), and triggered the running

of the one-year limitations period. The petition is therefore time-barred and for that reason

it must be denied.

Lopez also waived appeal and collateral attack pursuant to his plea agreement. (See

Docket no. 16 (Plea Agreement) at 10:11–11:3.)

Furthermore, although the Court is not deciding the Motion on the merits, it is worth

noting the Motion’s arguments are baseless. The Motion claims that the Court was required

to obtain lab results showing he had imported approximately 2.88 kilograms of heroin, as

charged, before sentencing him. In fact, he admitted both in his plea agreement and at his

change of plea hearing that he imported that amount of heroin (Docket no. 44 at 11:2–22),

and the Motion also attaches a copy of a lab report confirming both the fact that it was heroin

and the approximate amount. The Motion also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing

to file an appeal. But because the issue Lopez wanted to appeal is meritless, his counsel

was not ineffective for failing to pursue it. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 27 (9th Cir. 1994)

(failure to make a futile motion did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel).

The Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 2, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cr5308 and 14cv45

Case 3:14-cv-00045-LAB Document 2 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 2