Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01730/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01730-0/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

DANIEL ESCOBAR-GARIBALDI,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:13-cv-1730-AJB

[Related Criminal No.

3:11-cr-00200-AJB-1] 

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

[Doc. No. 35]

Daniel Escobar-Garibaldi (“Petitioner”) moves this Court to reduce his time in

federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that Petitioner was sentenced to a

higher guideline range than what he believed was proper. For the following reasons, the

Court DENIES the motion.

DISCUSSION

On December 28, 2011, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Petitioner pled

guilty to Count 1 of the Information in Criminal Case No. 11cr00200-AJB charging a

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) and (b). (See Conditional Plea Agreement, Doc. No.

11.) The Court sentenced Petitioner on May 19, 2011 to forty-six (46) months imprisonment and three (3) years of supervised release. (See Judgment Doc. No. 33.) 

1 3:11-cr-00200-AJB-1

Case 3:13-cv-01730-AJB Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 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

In Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 2255 provides that if a petitioner's

motion, file, and records “conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief,” the

Court summarily may dismiss the motion without sending it to the United States

Attorney for response. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The rules regarding Section 2255

proceedings similarly state that the Court summarily may order dismissal of a Section

2255 motion without service upon the United States Attorney only "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings

that the moving party is not entitled to relief . . . ." Rule 4(a), Rules governing Section

2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 281 U.S.C. foll. § 2255 (West

2009). Thus, when a movant fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or

when the motion is incredible or patently frivolous, the district court may summarily

dismiss the motion. Cf. United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989);

Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985). 

A defendant may waive his right to file a Section 2255 motion to challenge his

sentence, but such a waiver must state so expressly. United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d

956, 959 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a defendant may not waive an ineffective assistance

of counsel claim challenging the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea agreement or

the voluntariness of the waiver itself. United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259

(9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1156 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Petitioner's plea agreement states in part:

In exchange for the Government’s concessions in this plea agreement,

defendant waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to

collaterally attack the guilty plea, conviction and sentence, including any

restitution order, unless the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the

greater of the high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing or statutory

mandatory minimum term, if applicable. If the custodial sentence is greater

than the high end of that range, the defendant may appeal, but the Government

will be free to support on appeal the sentence actually imposed. If defendant

believes the Government’s recommendation is not in accord with this

agreement, defendant will object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the

objection will be deemed waived. If the defendant breaches this plea agreement, at any time, in any way, including, but not limited to, appealing or

collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence the Government may

prosecute defendant for any counts, including those with mandatory minimum

sentences, dismissed or not charged pursuant to this plea agreement. Addition2 3:11-cr-00200-AJB-1

Case 3:13-cv-01730-AJB Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 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

ally, the Government may use any factual admissions made by defendant

pursuant to this plea agreement in any such prosecution. 

( 3:11-cr-010200-AJB, Doc. No. 11 at 3.) The Ninth Circuit approves of such waivers

on public policy grounds, reasoning that finality is “perhaps the most important benefit

of plea bargaining” United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Courts will generally enforce a defendant's waiver of his right to appeal if: (1) “the

language of the waiver encompasses the defendant's right to appeal on the grounds

claimed on appeal,” and (2) “the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made.” United

States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, defendant’s sentence

was below the high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government

pursuant to the agreement at the time of sentencing. The government submitted a

guideline range of 46 to 57 months, and the court sentenced defendant to the low end.

The Court concludes that both of these requirements are met for a waiver to exist in this

case. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is barred and must be dismissed because of his

plea agreement waiver. 

Even if Petitioner had not waived his right to attack his conviction and sentence,

Petitioner's motion would fail on the merits. Petitioner lacks any support for his

arguments that the Court should make a departure because Petitioner initialed and signed

the plea agreement which clearly stated the Adjusted Offense Level totaling nineteen

(19) . Combined with a Criminal History Category of IV, the resulting guideline range is 1

forty-six (46) to fifty-seven (57) months. Petitioner argues that he should have been

sentenced to an Adjusted Offense Level of fifteen (15): base level for crime sentenced of

twelve (12) points, plus prior conviction upper enhancement of six (6) points, less

reduction for accepting responsibility of three (3) points. However, nothing in the record

supports Petitioner’s contention and calculation. 

 Base offense level of eight (8), plus prior conviction upper enhancement of sixteen (16), less 1

adjustment made for acceptance of responsibility of three (3) and fast track of two (2), totaling nineteen

(19). 

3 3:11-cr-00200-AJB-1

Case 3:13-cv-01730-AJB Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 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

What the United States Attorney chooses to offer as part of any plea agreement is

within the province of the United States Attorney. The Court is prohibited from participating in the plea bargaining process. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1). 

At sentencing, and by statute, the Court may depart downward only if there are

"aggravating or mitigating circumstances . . . not adequately taken into consideration by

the Sentencing Commission." In sentencing Petitioner, the Court considered all of the

potential departures available in determining the advisory guidelines applicable in this

case.

In addition, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) and by law, the Court can depart outside

the Advisory Guideline System for reasons set forth in the factors of and policy reasons

behind the Federal Sentencing Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). All relevant factors were

taken into consideration at the time of Mr. Escobar-Garibaldi’s sentencing.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to Vacate

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 35)

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

4 3:11-cr-00200-AJB-1

Case 3:13-cv-01730-AJB Document 3 Filed 09/25/13 Page 4 of 4