Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02507/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02507-0/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 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ray Charles Glass, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 13-2507-PHX-DGC (SPL) 

 CR 09-890-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 On December 9, 2013, Movant Ray Charles Glass, who is confined in the United 

States Penitentiary-Tucson in Tucson, Arizona, filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend 

Judgment” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(e). In a December 30, 2013 

Order, the Court noted that it appeared that Movant was attempting to collaterally attack 

his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 

days to file either (1) a notice withdrawing the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or (2) 

an amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal 

Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On January 28, 2014, Movant filed an Amended 

Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in 

Federal Custody. The Court will summarily dismiss the Amended § 2255 Motion. 

I. Procedural History 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pled guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On March 1, 2010, the Court sentenced Movant to a 120-month 

term of imprisonment followed by 3 years on supervised release. Movant asserts two 

Case 2:13-cv-02507-DGC--SPL Document 5 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

grounds for relief in his Amended § 2255 Petition. In both Grounds, Movant argues that 

the Court erred in relying on the Presentence Report to determine the appropriate 

sentence in Movant’s case. 

II. Summary Dismissal

 A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly 

appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 

the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 

Proceedings for the United States District Courts. When this standard is satisfied, neither 

a hearing nor a response from the government is required. See Marrow v. United States, 

772 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir. 1985); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 

1982). 

 In this case, the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is warranted 

because Movant has waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. 

III. Waiver 

 Movant waived challenges to his sentence and his right to bring a § 2255 action. 

There are “strict standards for waiver of constitutional rights.” United States v. 

Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2005). It is impermissible to presume 

waiver from a silent record, and the Court must indulge every reasonable presumption 

against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. United States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 

1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). In this action, Movant’s waiver was clear, 

express, and unequivocal. 

 Plea agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally 

be enforced if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. 

Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). A defendant may waive 

the statutory right to bring a § 2255 action challenging the length of the sentence. United 

States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Abarca, 985 

F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992)). The only claims that cannot be waived are claims that 

the waiver itself was involuntary or that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the 

Case 2:13-cv-02507-DGC--SPL Document 5 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

waiver involuntary. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(holding that a plea agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas petition 

pursuant to § 2254 is unenforceable with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim that challenges the voluntariness of the waiver); Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing 

doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim that counsel erroneously induced a 

defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 

(expressly declining to hold that a waiver forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or 

involuntariness of the waiver). 

 “Collateral attacks based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are 

characterized as falling outside [the category of ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver] are waivable.” United States v. 

Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Williams v. United States, 

396 F.3d 1340, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) (joining the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and 

Tenth Circuits in holding that “a valid sentence-appeal waiver, entered into voluntarily 

and knowingly, pursuant to a plea agreement, precludes the defendant from attempting to 

attack, in a collateral proceeding, the sentence through a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during sentencing.”). 

 As part of Movant’s plea agreement, Movant made the following waiver: 

Defendant hereby waives any right to raise on appeal or collaterally 

attack any matter pertaining to this prosecution and sentence if the 

sentence imposed is consistent with the terms of this agreement. 

(Doc. 27). Movant indicated in the plea agreement that he had discussed the terms with 

his attorney, agreed to the terms and conditions, and entered into the plea voluntarily. 

(Id.). Moreover, during the November 18, 2009 Change of Plea Hearing, the following 

colloquy occurred between Movant and the Magistrate Judge: 

The Magistrate Judge: “If however, [the district court judge] 

accepts this plea and sentences you consistent with all the 

terms of this agreement, after that you wouldn’t be permitted 

to withdraw from it and also, by the terms of your agreement, 

Case 2:13-cv-02507-DGC--SPL Document 5 Filed 03/04/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

you have given up your right to challenge your judgment and 

sentence to a higher court on appeal and to come back before 

this court in a collateral proceeding to challenge your 

judgment and sentence. Do you understand that as well?” 

Movant: “Yes, ma’am.” 

 Movant’s assertions in the § 2255 Motion all pertain to sentencing and do not 

pertain to the voluntariness of the waiver. Movant expressly waived issues regarding the 

imposition of sentence and expressly waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. The 

Court accepted the plea as voluntarily made. Consequently, the Court finds that Movant 

waived the sentencing issues raised in the § 2255 Motion. Thus, the Court will 

summarily dismiss the § 2255 Motion. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence (Doc. 29 in CR 09-890-PHX-DGC) is denied and the civil action opened in 

connection with this Motion (CV 13-2507-PHX-DGC (SPL)) is dismissed with 

prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 (2) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02507-DGC--SPL Document 5 Filed 03/04/14 Page 4 of 4