Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02631/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02631-0/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 

Civil Case No.: 16cv2631-JAH

Criminal Case No.: 13cr1235-JAH-2 

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

DEANDRA COX,

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

Civil Case No.: 16cv2631-JAH 

Criminal Case No.: 13cr1235-JAH-2 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, 

OR CORRECT SENTENCE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(Doc. No. 82) 

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Deandra Cox’s (“Petitioner”) pro 

se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 

No. 82. Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, this Court may 

dismiss a § 2255 motion if it “plainly appears” from the motion, attached exhibits, and the 

record of prior proceedings, that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Having thoroughly 

considered the relevant record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. 

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-02631-JAH Document 2 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

Civil Case No.: 16cv2631-JAH

Criminal Case No.: 13cr1235-JAH-2

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

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2013, Petitioner, with the advice and consent of counsel, signed a plea 

agreement, admitting that she and a codefendant “agreed to provide an ounce of 

methamphetamine to a customer, and thereafter two of them provided the customer 

approximately 27.6 grams of actual methamphetamine.” Doc. No. 27 at 2. On the same 

day, a change of plea hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. Doc. 

No. 25. The magistrate judge determined that Petitioner’s guilty plea was made knowingly 

and voluntarily, and did not result from force, threats, or promises. Doc. No. 28. On April

28, 2014, a sentencing hearing was held where upon this Court determined that under the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”), Petitioner’s base offense level was 28, 

with a minus-two adjustment for minor role, and a minus-three adjustment for acceptance 

of responsibility, for a total offense level of 23. Petitioner was sentenced to 77-months in 

custody, to run concurrent with two California state sentences, followed by four years of 

supervised release. See Doc. No. 60. Judgment was entered on April 29, 2014. Doc. No. 

61. On October 24, 2016, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, 

or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.

DISCUSSION

a. Legal Standard

The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(“AEDPA”) apply to petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court after April 

24, 1996. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The instant petition 

is subject to AEDPA because it was filed on October 24, 2016. A § 2255 motion may be 

brought to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence on the following grounds: (1) that 

the sentence “was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,” 

(2) that “the court was without jurisdiction to impose such [a] sentence,” (3) that “the 

sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law,” or (4) that “the sentence is 

otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 

//

Case 3:16-cv-02631-JAH Document 2 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

Civil Case No.: 16cv2631-JAH

Criminal Case No.: 13cr1235-JAH-2 

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

b. Analysis

As a threshold matter, “a defendant seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . . . must 

be in custody, [and] . . . claim the right to be released from custody.” United States v. 

Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) inmate 

locator indicates that Petitioner was released from custody on August 3, 2018.1 Despite 

Petitioner being out of BOP custody, she is still under supervised release and therefore in 

custody within the meaning of § 2255. Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F. 3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 

2005) (quoting Matus–Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] 

habeas petitioner remains in the custody of the United States while on supervised 

release”)).

Petitioner argues she is entitled to relief based upon Amendment 794—a “[n]ewly 

amended USSG Section 3B1.2 [which] concerns reductions sought for those who have a 

‘minor role’ in [an] offense.” Doc. No. 82 at 1. Amendment 794 amended the commentary 

to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2—the Guidelines section that provides for a downward adjustment to 

the offense level if the defendant was a minimal or minor participant in the criminal 

activity. Most notably, Amendment 794—which went into effect on November 1, 2015—

added a list of factors that a court should consider in determining whether to decrease an 

individual's offense level under § 3B1.2. In short, it “provides additional guidance to 

sentencing courts in determining whether a mitigating role adjustment applies.” U.S.S.G. 

app. C, amend. 794 (2015). However, a review of the sentencing record shows that 

Petitioner has indeed received a minus-two adjustment for her minor role in the crime. As 

such, there is no additional relief under Amendment 794 that the Court can provide to 

Petitioner because there is no allegation (1) that the sentence “was imposed in violation of 

the Constitution or laws of the United States,” (2) that “the court was without jurisdiction 

to impose such [a] sentence,” (3) that “the sentence was in excess of the maximum 

 

1

 See Inmate Locator & Record Availability, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ 

(last visited Feb. 13, 2020). 

Case 3:16-cv-02631-JAH Document 2 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

Civil Case No.: 16cv2631-JAH

Criminal Case No.: 13cr1235-JAH-2

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

authorized by law,” or (4) that “the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(a).

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

To appeal a district court’s denial of a § 2255 petition, a petitioner must obtain a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A district court may issue a 

certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard, the petitioner 

must show that “reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

For the reasons stated above, no reasonable jurist could conclude that Petitioner is 

entitled to relief based on the arguments set forth in her § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the 

Court declines to grant Petitioner a certificate of appealability

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set 

aside, or correct her sentence is DENIED. Doc. No. 82.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2020

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02631-JAH Document 2 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4