Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01169/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01169-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Ivan Guerrero-Melchor, 

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 06-1143-PHX-ROS

CIV 11-1169-PHX-ROS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Ivan Guerrero-Melchor filed a timely Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing two grounds for relief: (1) the district court violated

his fifth amendment rights by punishing him for exercising his right to proceed to trial by

denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility; and (2) appellate

counsel provided ineffective assistance by not raising the failure to receive a downward

departure as an issue on appeal. Guerrero-Melchor was indicted for illegal reentry after

deportation. He has consistently maintained that he was under the influence of alcohol and

did not intentionally cross the border into the United States. Following a jury trial, the jury

convicted Guerrero-Melchor as charged , and the district court imposed a 92-month sentence.

Guerrero-Melchor filed a direct appeal. On July 6, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the

conviction and sentence. On June 6, 2011, Guerrero-Melchor filed the Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence. The Court recommends that his motion be denied.

Case 2:11-cv-01169-ROS Document 6 Filed 09/27/11 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 - 2 -

With respect to Guerrero-Melchor’s first claim, a defendant is procedurally barred

from raising a claim on collateral review if he failed to raise it at trial or on direct appeal,

absent the establishment of cause excusing the default, and actual prejudice resulting from

the claimed error. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998). Guerrero-Melchor

has failed to demonstrate any cause excusing the default.

Even assuming such evidence would be sufficient to overcome the procedural default,

the claim has no merit. Guerrero-Melchor has the burden of establishing acceptance of

responsibility sufficient to entitle him to a downward adjustment. United States v. Howard,

894 F.2d 1085, 1090, n.4 (9th Cir. 1990). Putting the government through trial does not

automatically preclude acceptance. "Indeed, were a defendant required to plead guilty to be

entitled to the reduction, the sentencing guidelines would penalize the exercise of the

constitutional right to go to trial." United States v. McKinney, 15 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir.

1994). "Where a defendant manifests a genuine acceptance of responsibility for his actions,

he is entitled to the reduction even if he does not plead guilty." Id.

There is nothing in the record, however, which demonstrates that Guerrero-Melchor

exhibited such acceptance of responsibility. He has not admitted his guilt or expressed

remorse for his conduct, and he even refused to participate in a pre-sentence interview with

a probation officer (wherein he could have, as defendants often do, demonstrated an

acceptance of responsibility). He asserts that he admitted his conduct to police at the time

he was apprehended, but that is belied by his continued insistence that he did not have the

requisite intent. The sentencing judge mentioned as reasons supporting the conclusion that

he did not accept responsibility both his testimony and the testimony of the officers, how he

treated the officers at the time of the arrest, that he was not truthful when he testified, and

that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not telling the truth. GuerreroMelchor has not met his burden.

His second claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the denial of

a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility. In order to establish ineffective

Case 2:11-cv-01169-ROS Document 6 Filed 09/27/11 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 -

assistance, Guerrero-Melchor must demonstrate that trial counsel’s representation was

deficient, and that he was prejudiced as a result of that deficient performance. Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-92 (1984). The sentencing judge properly concluded that he

was not entitled to such a downward departure. Counsel could not therefore be considered

ineffective for failing to raise a weak argument on appeal. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745,

751 (1983). In addition, Guerrero-Melchor has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability

that but for appellate counsel’s omission, the result of his appeal would have been different.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ivan Guerrero-Melchor’s Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied (Doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied either because denial of the motion is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable,

or because Guerrero-Melchor has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

Case 2:11-cv-01169-ROS Document 6 Filed 09/27/11 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 -

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 27th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01169-ROS Document 6 Filed 09/27/11 Page 4 of 4