Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01861/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01861-0/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. 09CR2197WQH

CASE NO. 11CV1861WQH

vs. ORDER

WILLIAM MANN LUKSIC,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside,

or correct sentence by a person in federal custody filed by Defendant. (ECF No. 66). 

Defendant moves the court to modify his sentence on the grounds that he was denied effective

assistance of counsel, his prison term was unreasonable, and the Court violated his Fifth

Amendment right to Due Process by imposing sentencing enhancements. The Court finds that

the issues raised in the petition are appropriate for summary disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without

jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which

- 1 - 09cr2197

Case 3:11-cv-01861-WQH Document 2 Filed 02/22/12 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

imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 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).

 RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to

appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence in the plea agreement. The plea

agreement stated in relevant part as follows: 

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 conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the Court

imposes a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range

recommended by the Government pursuant to this plea agreement at the time of

the sentencing. If the custodial sentence is greater than the high end of that

range, defendant may appeal his sentence only, but the Government will be free

to support on appeal the sentence actually imposed. If the defendant believes the

Government’s recommendation is not in accord with this plea agreement,

defendant will object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the objection will be

deemed waived. If defendant breaches this plea agreement, at any time, by

appealing or collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence, in any way, the

Government may prosecute defendant for any counts, including those with

mandatory minimum sentences, dismissed or not charged pursuant to this plea

agreement. Additionally, the Government may use any factual admissions made

by defendant pursuant to this plea agreement in any such prosecution. 

(ECF No. 30 at 12-13.) 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, 298 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). “A general waiver of appeal in a plea

agreement does not waive the right to bring a § 2255 motion unless it does so expressly.” 

United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Abarca,

985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979 (1993) (allowing defendant to waive

the statutory right to file a § 2255 petition challenging the length of his sentence). The Ninth

Circuit qualified this waiver for claims of “ineffective assistance of counsel based on

counsel’s erroneously unprofessional inducement of the defendant to plead guilty or accept a

particular plea bargain.” United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994).

- 2 - 09cr2197

Case 3:11-cv-01861-WQH Document 2 Filed 02/22/12 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

In this case, Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim pertains to failure to

file a notice of appeal, not his guilty plea or plea agreement. (ECF No. 66). The waiver of

collateral attack upon the sentence is clear, express and unequivocal. Defendant waived his

right to collaterally attack his sentence in a 2255 proceeding, unless the Court imposes a

custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government pursuant to this plea agreement at the time of the sentencing. The guideline range

recommended by the Government pursuant to this plea agreement at the time of the sentencing

was 188-235 months. (ECF No. 40). The Court imposed a sentence of 144 months, which is 

lower than the low end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to

this plea agreement at the time of the sentencing. (ECF No. 54). Therefore, the Defendant

waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence in the plea agreement.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by

a person in federal custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 66) filed by Defendant is denied. 

DATED: February 22, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 09cr2197

Case 3:11-cv-01861-WQH Document 2 Filed 02/22/12 Page 3 of 3