Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02630/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02630-0/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

MARTIN ANTONIO CABANILLASGARCIA,

Defendant-Movant,

Civil Case No. 12-cv-2630-BTM

Crim. Case No. 11-cr-4096-BTM

ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION

AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent.

Martin Antonio Canabillas-Garcia (“Defendant”), a federal inmate proceeding pro se,

has filed a motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set

forth below, Defendant’s § 2255 motion and a certificate of appealability are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2011, a grand jury indicted Defendant with a charge of

violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, importation of methamphetamine. On May 24, 2012,

Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a Plea Agreement. (Plea Agreement, ECF No. 34.) In the

Plea Agreement, Defendant acknowledged that the crime to which he pled guilty carried a

mandatory minimum of ten years in prison. (Id. at 3.) Defendant also stipulated to an order

of removal from the United States upon serving his imposed sentence and waived his right

1 12cv2630-BTM; 11cr4096-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02630-BTM Document 2 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 6
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

to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. (Id. at 9, 12.) 

At sentencing, counsel for Defendant calculated a sentencing guideline range of 57

to 71 months and recommended 30 months in custody and 3 years of supervised release.

(Def.’s Sentencing Chart, Sept. 28, 2012, ECF No. 39.) The Government also calculated

a sentencing guideline range of 57 to 71 months and recommended 57 months in custody.

(Gov’t Sentencing Chart, Oct. 3, 2012, ECF No. 40.) On October 5, 2012, the Court

sentenced Defendant to a 41-month term of imprisonment and 3-year supervised release

term. (ECF No. 42.)

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues for a sentence reduction based on the fact that as a deportable

alien, he is ineligible for (1) housing in a minimum security facility or community

confinement or (2) a one-year sentence reduction through a drug program and/or early

release to a halfway house. Defendant further contends that his ineligibility for these

programs violates due process, equal protection, and the Equal Rights Act.

Defendant’s motion, however, fails for two reasons. First, Defendant waived his

right to collaterally attack his sentence under the Plea Agreement. Second, even

assuming Defendant did not waive his right to attack his sentence, his due process, equal

protection, and Equal Rights Act claims fail on the merits. 

A. Waiver

Defendant argues for a sentence reduction, but Defendant waived his 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 is knowingly and voluntarily made.” United States v.

Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d

1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that a waiver barring

collateral attack of a conviction or sentence is enforceable when voluntarily made. See

2 12cv2630-BTM; 11cr4096-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02630-BTM Document 2 Filed 11/26/12 Page 2 of 6
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 v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Here, Defendant entered a Plea Agreement, filed on May 24, 2012, that expressly

waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence:

Defendant also waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to

collaterally attack his sentence, except a post-conviction collateral attack

based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the Court

imposes a custodial sentence above the greater of: the high end of the

guideline range calculated by the Government pursuant to this plea

agreement, or the statutory mandatory minimum term.

(Plea Agreement 10.) Defendant has not alleged a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel. Additionally, the Court imposed a sentence of 41 months, which is less than

both the Government’s calculated guideline range of 57 to 71 months and the statutory

mandatory minimum term of 10 years imprisonment. Thus, the language of the waiver

encompasses the grounds raised in the instant motion. Further, Defendant has not

alleged, and there is nothing in the record to indicate, that his waiver was not knowingly

and voluntarily made. 

Accordingly, Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence, and

therefore the Court denies Defendant’s motion.

B. Merits 

Even assuming Defendant did not waive his right to collaterally attack his

sentence, his due process, equal protection, and Equal Rights Act claims fail on the

merits.

1. Due Process

Defendant has not stated a claim for a due process violation. “A due process

claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake.”

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit, however,

has held that a prisoner does not have a recognized liberty interest in sentence reduction.

See Jacks v. Crabtree, 114 F.3d 983, 986 n.4 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[D]enial of the one year

3 12cv2630-BTM; 11cr4096-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02630-BTM Document 2 Filed 11/26/12 Page 3 of 6
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

reduction doesn’t impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life. In fact, denial merely means that the inmate will have to

serve out his sentence as expected.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s due process claim fails.

2. Equal Protection

Defendant also has not stated an equal protection claim. The Equal Protection

Clause applies to aliens who are present in the United States unlawfully. Plyler v. Doe,

457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). To state a claim for an equal protection violation, however,

Defendant must allege that he was treated differently from other similarly situated

persons. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). 

Unless a suspect classification is present, the unequal treatment must only be “rationally

related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. at 440. Illegal alienage is not a suspect

classification, Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223, and therefore rational basis scrutiny applies, which

“accords a strong presumption of validity.” McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1186

(9th Cir. 1999) cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1086 (2000).

The policy of excluding deportable aliens from participating in community-based

treatment programs, and consequently from being eligible for sentence reductions upon

completion of the programs, survives rational basis scrutiny. See McLean, 173 F.3d at

1186 (holding that “excluding prisoners with [Immigration and Naturalization] detainers

from participating in community-based treatment programs, and consequently from

sentence reduction eligibility, is at least rationally related to the BOP's legitimate interest

in preventing prisoners from fleeing detainers while participating in community treatment

programs”). Deportable aliens “pose a flight risk during the community-based treatment

phase because they are subject to possible deportation upon release from custody, and

therefore have reason to flee a halfway house.” Id. at 1184. Prisoners without detainers,

such as United States citizens, however, “have more incentive to complete the

community requirement because upon its completion they will likely qualify for sentence

4 12cv2630-BTM; 11cr4096-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02630-BTM Document 2 Filed 11/26/12 Page 4 of 6
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

reduction and be permitted to rejoin their communities.” See id. at 1184. Thus,

deportable aliens are not “similarly situated” to United States citizens regarding eligibility

for community-based or early release programs. See, e.g., Patterson-Romo v. United

States, No. 10cr3119, 2012 WL 4754962, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2012); United States v.

Roman-Gutierrez, No. 12cr1422, 2012 WL 4754962, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012);

United States v. Nguyen, No. 97cr152-05, 2000 WL 1133055 (D. Or. Aug. 10, 2000) (“the

Ninth Circuit has unequivocally held that the denial of such benefits to deportable aliens

pursuant to immigration detainers does not violate the Constitution”); Santos v. United

States, 940 F. Supp. 275, 281 (D. Haw. 1996) (“one's status as a deportable alien, which

may result in ineligibility for less restrictive terms of confinement, nevertheless cannot

justify a downward departure”). Therefore, there is no equal protection violation, and

Defendant’s claim fails on the merits.

3. Equal Rights Act

Defendant also argues that his ineligibility violates the “Equal Rights Act” because

no person shall be discriminated based on nationality. Defendant is essentially claiming

that he is treated differently based on his status as an alien. Defendant’s equal

protection claim, addressed above, encompasses this claim. Accordingly, the result is

the same, and this claim also fails on the merits. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

5 12cv2630-BTM; 11cr4096-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02630-BTM Document 2 Filed 11/26/12 Page 5 of 6
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

III. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s collateral attack of his sentence is barred by a valid waiver. Further,

Defendant’s due process, equal protection, and Equal Rights Act claims fail on the merits. 

The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 and DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2012 

HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

United States District Judge

6 12cv2630-BTM; 11cr4096-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02630-BTM Document 2 Filed 11/26/12 Page 6 of 6