Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00863/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00863-0/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Julio Homero Briones-Celis, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 06-445-PHX-MHM

No. CV 07-863-PHX-MHM (JCG)

ORDER

Movant Julio Homero Briones-Celis, who is confined in the California City

Correctional Institution in California City, California, filed a pro se “Motion for Time

Reduction by an Inmate in Federal Custody under (28 U.S.C. § 2255).” The Court will

summarily dismiss the motion.

I. Procedural History

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pled guilty to Harboring of Illegal Aliens for

Profit, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). On December 4, 2006, the

Court sentenced Movant to a 33-month term of imprisonment followed by 2 years on

supervised release.

Movant seeks a reduction of his sentence based on an Attorney General Memorandum

allegedly authorizing up to a 2-point departure if a defendant accepts a final deportation

order. He also alleges that his Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Fourteenth

Amendment equal protection rights are being violated because as a deportable alien, he is

Case 2:07-cv-00863-MHM--JCG Document 2 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1

In addition, the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected Movant’s equal protection argument

in McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999). 

- 2 -

ineligible for a one-year sentence reduction for attending a drug treatment program during

incarceration, certain prison employment, and early release to a half-way house.

II. Summary Dismissal

A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly 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); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover,

if there has been a valid waiver of the right to file a federal habeas corpus petition, a court

lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.

2005).

In this case, the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is warranted

and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion because Movant has waived the right to

bring a § 2255 motion.1

III. Waiver

Movant has waived challenges to his sentence. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

has found that there are “strict standards for waiver of constitutional rights.” United States

v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2005). It is impermissible to presume

waiver from a silent record, and the Court must indulge every reasonable presumption

against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. United States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d

1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004). In this action, Movant’s waiver was 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,

Case 2:07-cv-00863-MHM--JCG Document 2 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory right to bring a

§ 2255 action challenging the length of his sentence. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431,

433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992). The only

claims that cannot be waived are claims that the waiver itself was involuntary or that

ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver involuntary. See Washington, 422 F.3d

at 871 (holding that a plea agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas petition

pursuant to § 2254 is unenforceable with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

that challenges the voluntariness of the waiver); Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing doubt that

a plea agreement could waive a claim that counsel erroneously induced a defendant to plead

guilty or accept a particular plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 (expressly declining to

hold that a waiver forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the

waiver); see also Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1156 n.4 (declining to decide whether waiver of all

statutory rights included claims implicating the voluntariness of the waiver). 

As part of his plea agreement, Movant made the following waiver:

The defendant waives any and all motions, defenses, probable

cause determinations, and objections which the defendant could

assert to the information or indictment or to the Court’s entry of

judgment against the defendant and imposition of sentence upon

the defendant providing the sentence is consistent with this

agreement. The defendant further waives: (1) any right to

appeal the Court’s entry of judgment against defendant; (2) any

right to appeal the imposition of sentence upon defendant under

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 (sentence appeals);

and (3) any right to collaterally attack defendant’s conviction

and sentence under Title 28, United States Code, Section

2255, or any other collateral attack.

(Emphasis added.) (Doc. #79). Movant indicated in his plea agreement that he had discussed

the terms with his attorney, agreed to the terms and conditions, and entered into the plea

voluntarily. (Doc. #79).

Movant’s assertions in his § 2255 motion all pertain to sentencing and do not pertain

to the voluntariness of the waiver. Movant expressly waived issues regarding the imposition

of sentence and expressly waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. The Court accepted his

plea as voluntarily made. Consequently, the Court finds that Movant waived the sentencing

Case 2:07-cv-00863-MHM--JCG Document 2 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

issues raised in his § 2255 motion. Thus, the Court will summarily dismiss the motion for

lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Time Reduction (Doc. #83 in CR 06-445-PHXMHM) is denied and that the civil action opened in connection with this Motion (CV 07-

863-PHX-MHM (JCG)) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of

dismissal of the civil action accordingly.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00863-MHM--JCG Document 2 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4