Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00843/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00843-0/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

- 1 - 11cv843 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE CANO-VALENCIA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11CV843 DMS

(Associated criminal case: 08cr643)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SENTENCING REDUCTION

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On June 13, 2008, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of over 500 grams of

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) subject to a plea

agreement. (Opp. at Ex. 1 at 2-3.) On September 3, 2008, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 57

months custody followed by three years of supervised release. (Id. at Ex. 3.) On April 20, 2011,

Petitioner filed the instant motion for a sentencing reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Petitioner seeks a reduction in his sentence based upon a claim that he is entitled to the

application of a subsequent amendment to the sentencing guidelines that reduced his sentencing range.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant’s motion is denied because he has failed to demonstrate that

his sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. Petitioner does not identify a specific amendment to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines that has impacted his sentencing range and the two cases he cites in his motion, United

States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2009) and United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.

2009), address amendments to the base offense level for offenses involving cocaine. 

Case 3:11-cv-00843-DMS Document 2 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 11cv843 

In the alternative, liberally construing Petitioner’s application as a motion to vacate, set aside,

or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it is also denied because, when Petitioner pleaded

guilty in exchange for a lower sentence, which was actuallyimposed, hewaived his right to collaterally

attack his sentence. (Id. at Ex. 1 at 9.) Such a waiver bars relief under § 2255 other than for

ineffective assistance of counsel claims that challenge the voluntariness of the waiver. See United

States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00843-DMS Document 2 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 2