Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02325/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02325-0/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

MARLON LAU-GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12-cv-2325 – IEG

Related Case: 12-cr-862 – IEG

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR TIME

REDUCTION PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2255

[Doc. No. 1 in 12-cv-2325]

[Doc. No. 33 in 12-cr-862]

(2) DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Petitioner Marlon Lau-Gonzalez, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,

submitted a motion for time reduction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. No. 33

in 12-cr-862.] Having considered Petitioner’s arguments, and for the reasons set

forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged with, and ultimately pled guilty to, violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 (intentional importation of methamphetamine). [See Doc.

No. 33.] As part of his Plea Agreement, Petitioner expressly “waive[d], to the full

extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and

sentence . . . unless the Court impose[d] a custodial sentence above the greater of the

- 1 - 12cr862-IEG; 12cv2325-IEG

Case 3:12-cv-02325-IEG Document 3 Filed 06/10/13 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

high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this

agreement at the time of sentencing or statutory mandatory minimum term, if

applicable.” [Doc. No. 21 at 10.] On September 10, 2012, the Court sentenced

Petitioner to 30 months in federal custody (and three years of supervised release),

well below the 63-70 month range recommended by the Government. [See Doc.

Nos. 30, 31.] 

With the present motion, Petitioner contends that, due to his alien status, he is

ineligible for (1) a one-year reduction of sentence through a drug program, (2) an

early release to a halfway house, and (3) a Unicor job, and that the availability of

these programs to United States citizens, but not to aliens such as Petitioner, violates

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause

of the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal Rights Act of 1964. [Doc. No. 33.]

DISCUSSION

Section 2255(a) authorizes the Court to “vacate, set aside or correct” a

sentence of a federal prisoner that “was imposed in violation of the Constitution or

laws of the United States.” Claims for relief under § 2255 must be based on some

constitutional error, jurisdictional defect, or an error resulting in a “complete

miscarriage of justice” or in a proceeding “inconsistent with the rudimentary

demands of fair procedure.” United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84

(1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the record clearly indicates that a

petitioner does not have a claim or that he has asserted “no more than conclusory

allegations, unsupported by facts and refuted by the record,” a district court may

deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Quan, 789

F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986).

I. Waiver

It is clear that Petitioner waived any right to collaterally attack his sentence. 

“‘A defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable if (1) the language of

the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and (2) the waiver

- 2 - 12cr862-IEG; 12cv2325-IEG

Case 3:12-cv-02325-IEG Document 3 Filed 06/10/13 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

is knowingly and voluntarily made.’” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257,

1259 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). In this case, as part of his Plea Agreement,

Petitioner expressly waived “any right . . . to collaterally attack the conviction and

sentence,” unless “the Court impose[d] a custodial sentence above the greater of the

high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this

agreement at the time of sentencing.” [Doc. No. 21 at 10.] At sentencing, the Court

imposed a sentence of 30 months, well below the 63-70 month range recommended

by the Government. [See Doc. Nos. 30, 31.] Because the Court did not impose a

sentence above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the

Government, waiver applies. Nor is there any indication that Petitioner’s waiver

was not knowingly and voluntarily made. Accordingly, Petitioner’s valid waiver

precludes collateral attack on his sentence. See United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d

1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318,

321-22 (9th Cir. 1990) (public policy supports plea agreements because, inter alia,

of the finality that results).

CONCLUSION

Because Petitioner’s collateral attack is precluded by a valid waiver, the Court

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for time reduction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court

also denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not “made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2013 ________________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cr862-IEG; 12cv2325-IEG

Case 3:12-cv-02325-IEG Document 3 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 3