Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02311/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02311-0/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,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cr2113-

LAB/12cv2311-LAB

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 HABEAS MOTION

vs.

JOSE LUIS SOTO-GAMBOA,

Defendant.

Jose Luis Soto-Gamboa, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to one count

of being a removed alien found in the United States. Under the terms of the plea agreement

he waived appeal or collateral attack, and received the benefit of a Fast Track

recommendation. (Docket no. 14 (Plea Agreement).) On September 20, 2012, the Court

entered judgment, sentencing Soto-Gamboa to 57 months’ imprisonment, followed by three

years’ supervised release. The very next day, he filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

seeking a sentence reduction.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 1 - 12cr2113/12cv2311

Case 3:12-cv-02311-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 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

Soto-Gamboa’s motion is completely frivolous. First, he waived appeal and collateral

attack and received substantial benefits by doing so. Second, he argues that as an alien 1

subject to deportation, he is subject to heavier penalties than U.S. citizens. This argument

is nonsensical, because the offense he pleaded guilty to, by definition can only be committed

by aliens who have been deported. Third, his motion is boilerplate: it is a nearly-identical

copy of an existing motion with only his name and details of his arrest and conviction typed

into a blank. The arguments it raises have been repeatedly rejected by this Court and other

courts as meritless. See, e.g., Patterson-Romo v. United States, 2012 WL 2060872

(S.D.Cal., June 7, 2012) (Gonzalez, J.); United States v. Beltran-Palafox, 2012 WL 899262

at *2 and n.14 (D.Kan., Mar. 16, 2012); Aguilar-Marroquin v. United States, 2011 WL

1344251 (S.D.Cal., Apr. 8, 2011) (Huff, J.); Rendon-Inzunza v. United States, 2010 WL

3076271 (S.D.Cal., Aug. 6, 2010) (Burns, J.).

Photocopies of this boilerplate motion are apparently circulating among inmates, as

a kind of legal form. Each inmate types his own name and information into the form and files

it. boilerplate portions of the motions are visually identical, even incorporating the same

typographical errors. These motions are routinely denied, not because they are boilerplate,

but because they are meritless. 

At the same time, it is worth pointing out that filing a boilerplate motion one doesn’t

understand is foolish and wrong. First, it is dishonest to promise not to file a § 2255 motion,

and then immediately break that promise without explanation and for no good reason.

Second, it could result in terrible legal consequences for the defendants who do this. For

example, Soto-Gamboa’s plea agreement provides that if he files an appeal or collaterally

attacks his sentence (except under very limited circumstances), the government is released

from any promise it made in the plea agreement not to prosecute him for other crimes, and

Under his plea agreement, Soto-Gamboa waived appeal or collateral attack unless 1

he was sentenced above the guideline range recommended by the government pursuant to

the plea agreement. That guideline range was 46 to 57 months. (See Docket no. 14 at

7:8–8:28) (sections of plea agreement detailing what government’s recommendations were

to be); Docket no. 20 (government’s sentencing summary chart, making recommendations

as agreed, and calculating guideline range of 46 to 57 months).) He was sentenced to 57

months, within the recommended range, and therefore waived appeal.

- 2 - 12cr2113/12cv2311

Case 3:12-cv-02311-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 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

many use any admissions he made in the plea agreement as evidence when prosecuting

him. Also, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) and § 2255(h), once a defendant has filed a § 2255

motion, district courts generally cannot consider a later § 2255 motion the defendant might

want to bring. Filing a frivolous motion such as this one could make it difficult or impossible

for defendants to file § 2255 motions later, if they should discover a legitimate reason for

doing so.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 4, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cr2113/12cv2311

Case 3:12-cv-02311-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 3