Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00890/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00890-0/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

03CR3384/05CV890 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MAYRA ORTUNO-ROCHA

Defendant-Petititioner.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-890-L

Criminal No. 03-CR-3384-L

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITIONER’S MOTION UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255

Defendant, a prisoner in federal custody proceeding pro se, filed a motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (“petition”) following her guilty plea

and sentencing in Criminal Case No. 03-CR-3384-L. Defendant was represented by counsel

throughout her criminal case. 

On December 16, 2003, defendant was arraigned on a one-count Information changing

her with importation of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

952 and 960, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On January 12, 2004, defendant entered a guilty plea to the

charge in the Information. On April 12, 2004, defendant was sentenced to 37 months in custody

to be followed by five years of supervised release. Defendant did not file a direct appeal.

Defendant attacks her sentence contending that she is entitled to a downward departure or

that her sentence must be vacated because of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)

which held the federal sentencing guidelines must be advisory rather than mandatory. In order

Case 3:05-cv-00890-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 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 The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea agreement's stipulations

regarding the sentencing guidelines. Moreover, defendant did not contest the allegations that he

violated supervised release. 

2 03CR3384/05CV890 

to determine that defendant’s position is applicable, Booker must apply retroactively. It does

not. imposed following the revocation of his supervised release contending that 18 U.S.C. §

3583 in facially unconstitutional. 

The government argues that the § 2255 motion must be dismissed because defendant

waived her right to collaterally attack her sentence.

Waiver of Right to Appeal or Collaterally Attack Sentence

The government contends defendant has waived his right to collaterally attack his

sentence because of the written plea agreement. The plea agreement provides:

In exchange for the United States’ 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 sentence in excess of the high end of the guideline range based on an

adjusted level of 111

. . . . 

(Plea Agreement at 9 [doc. #15]).

The Court has independently reviewed the record which indicates that the plea agreement,

including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily, see United

States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir. 1998) (waiver of right to appeal is valid if

knowing and voluntary). The Court also finds that petitioner’s motion raises no challenge to the

validity of the waiver; therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any collateral challenge

to his sentence. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005)(recognizing that

if sentencing agreement’s waiver for the right to file a federal habeas petition is valid, district

court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case).

Retroactivity of Booker

In Booker, the Court explicitly changed both the sentencing statutes and Sentencing

Guidelines. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Court modified the federal

sentencing statute by severing and excising 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), “the provision of the federal

sentencing statute that makes the Guidelines mandatory.” Id., at 245. 

Case 3:05-cv-00890-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 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 03CR3384/05CV890 

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court's decision in Booker “marked a major transformation

in the law of federal criminal sentencing.” United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 984 (9th

Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has held that Booker does not operate retroactively, and “does not

apply to cases on collateral review where the conviction was final as of the date of Booker's

publication.” United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant’s

conviction here was the year prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker. Accordingly,

defendant is not entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and not entitled to any relief

under Booker.

Further, the Court cannot modify petitioners' sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582()(2).

Section 3582(c)(2) allows the district court to modify a sentence where the applicable sentencing

range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission subsequent to the imposition of the

sentence. Booker did not lower sentencing ranges, nor was Booker an action “by the Sentencing

Commission”; therefore § 3582(c)(2), by its own terms, does not apply here. See United States v.

Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (11th Cir.2005). 

Conclusion

Petitioner waived her right to collaterally attack her sentence. Moreover, even if the

Court found she had not waived her right to collaterally attack her sentence, Booker is not

applicable here and defendant is not entitled to any relief.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED dismissing petitioner’s motion to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 26, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00890-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 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 03CR3384/05CV890 

Case 3:05-cv-00890-L Document 2 Filed 01/26/07 Page 4 of 4