Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02792/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02792-0/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.

Ramon Ruiz-Gonzalez, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-2792-PHX-NVW (DKD)

 CR 09-1283-PHX-NVW

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Ramon Ruiz-Gonzalez filed a timely Motion to Vacate Set Aside or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his conviction following a guilty plea for illegal

reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), enhanced by § 1326(b)(1), and the imposition of

a 46-month prison term, followed by three years of supervised release. Ruiz-Gonzalez raises

six grounds in his motion: (1) the district court failed to comply with the federal rules and

the constitution during the arraignment, resulting in reversible error in the guilty plea

proceedings; (2) his sentence was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet

the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (3) the sentencing court erred and RuizGonzalez unknowingly and involuntarily waived his right to appeal as part of the plea

agreement; (4) his ineligibility for minimum security confinement, drug program, and prerelease custody as a result of his status as a deportable alien were significant mitigating

factors that should have been considered by the sentencing court; (5) the sentence imposed

Case 2:10-cv-02792-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/18/11 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 -

was unreasonable; and (6) the district court erred in concluding that Ruiz-Gonzalez’s prior

conviction was an aggravated felony. The government contends that Ruiz-Gonzalez

expressly waived his right to file the motion as part of the plea agreement, and that the claims

are without merit. The Court agrees that the right to file a § 2255 motion was expressly

waived, and that the only ground possibly not subject to the waiver is without merit, and

recommends that the motion be denied.

Pursuant to the “fast track” plea agreement, Ruiz-Gonzalez admitted that he was

convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, resulting in a sentencing guideline range

of 46-57 months. Ruiz requested that he be sentenced to 46 months, the low end of the

guideline range (Doc. 5, Exh A, RT 1/26/2010 at 7-8). The district court granted his request

(Id. at 12). As part of the agreement, Ruiz-Gonzalez waived “any right to file an appeal, any

collateral attack, or any other writ or motion that challenges the conviction, the Court’s entry

of judgment against defendant, or the imposition of sentence, including the manner in which

the sentence is determined, including but not limited to any appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3742

and motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2255" (CR 09-1283-NVW, Doc. 21 at 4). He

acknowledged in writing that “this wavier shall result in the dismissal of any appeal or

collateral attack, or other motion the defendant might file challenging the conviction or

sentence in this case” (Id.). He also acknowledged this orally to the magistrate judge during

the change of plea proceedings (Doc. 5, Exh B at 15). 

A defendant may specifically waive the right to file a § 2255 motion. United States

v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts will generally enforce the plain

language of a plea agreement if it is clear and unambiguous on its face, United States v.

Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2000), and the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made.

United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). However, "a plea agreement does

not waive the right to bring a § 2255 motion unless it does so expressly." United States v.

Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Government concedes that the Ninth

Circuit has expressed doubt that a defendant, by entering into a plea agreement, could waive

certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel brought pursuant to a § 2255 motion,

Case 2:10-cv-02792-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/18/11 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 -

notwithstanding an express plea waiver that covered all of a defendant's waivable statutory

rights to file a petition pursuant to § 2255 challenging his conviction or sentence. However,

those claims which are not waivable are limited to ones either challenging the knowing and

voluntary nature of the plea agreement, or the voluntariness of the waiver itself. See United

States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1156-57 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Pruitt,

32 F.3d at 433. 

None of Ruiz-Gonzalez’s claims allege the ineffective assistance of counsel. In his

third ground, however, he asserts that he “unknowingly and involuntarily waived his right

to appeal his sentence as part of the plea agreement.” Although he does not implicate

counsel in this assertion, he does assert that the reason he did not raise the issue on appeal

was “based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” Assuming this language is

sufficient to raise an unwaivable claim, the claim is nonetheless without merit because the

record reflects a knowing and voluntary waiver by Ruiz-Gonzalez. See Doc. 5, Exh B at 15.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ramon Ruiz-Gonzalez’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 because denial of the motion is justified

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

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 fourteen

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

Case 2:10-cv-02792-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/18/11 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 -

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

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 18th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02792-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/18/11 Page 4 of 4