Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00950/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00950-0/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

02cr1649/06cv950

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE RAMIRO BECERRA,

Defendant-Petitioner. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-CV-0950-L

Criminal No. 02-CR-1649-L

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITIONER’S MOTION UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255

[28 U.S.C. § 2255]

On April 26, 2006, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody following his guilty

plea and sentencing in Criminal Case No. 02-CR-1649-L. Defendant was represented by

counsel throughout his criminal case. 

On May 24, 2002, a complaint against defendant was filed alleging defendant knowingly

and intentionally imported approximately 85.94 kilograms (189.07 pounds) of marijuana, a

Schedule 1 Controlled substance into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. 

On June 25, 2002, defendant appeared before the magistrate judge and entered a guilty plea to

the charge in the Complaint. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court judge

accept the plea. [doc. #9]. On February 10, 2003, the Court accepted defendant plea of guilty

and sentenced defendant to 15 months in custody to be followed by three years of supervised

release. Defendant did not file a direct appeal.

Case 3:06-cv-00950-L Document 1 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 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

1 The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea agreement's stipulations

regarding the sentencing guidelines. Moreover, defendant did not contest the allegations that he

violated supervised release. 

02cr1649/06cv950

2

Defendant failed to self-surrender. As a result, a bench warrant was issued for

defendant’s arrest. Becerra was subsequently indicted for bail jump in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

3146. On December 12, 2005, defendant was arrested in Texas and transported to the Southern

District of California. Defendant pled guilty to one count of bail jumping on March 13, 2006. 

On May 8, 2006, defendant was sentenced in criminal case no. 03-CR-1998-L, to 12 month for

the bail jump. The sentence was to run consecutive to the 15-month sentence entered in the

present case.

Defendant attacks his sentence contending that his sentence must be vacated because of

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) which held the federal sentencing guidelines must

be advisory rather than mandatory. In order to determine that defendant’s position is applicable,

Booker must apply retroactively. It does not. 

The government argues that the § 2255 motion must be dismissed because defendant

waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence and Booker is not applicable in the present

case.

Waiver of Right to Appeal or Collaterally Attack Sentence

The government contends defendant has waived his right to collaterally attack his

sentence because of the written plea agreement. The plea agreement provides:

In exchange for the United States’ concessions in this plea agreement, Defendant

waives to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack

the conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the Court

imposes a sentence in excess of the high end of the guideline range based on an

adjusted level of 111

. . . . 

(Plea Agreement at 9 [doc. #14]).

The Court has independently reviewed the record which indicates that the plea agreement,

including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily, see United

States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir. 1998) (waiver of right to appeal is valid if

knowing and voluntary). The Court also finds that petitioner’s motion raises no challenge to the

Case 3:06-cv-00950-L Document 1 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 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

02cr1649/06cv950

3

validity of the waiver; therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any collateral challenge

to his sentence. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005)(recognizing that

if sentencing agreement’s waiver for the right to file a federal habeas petition is valid, district

court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case).

Retroactivity of Booker

In Booker, the Court explicitly changed both the sentencing statutes and Sentencing

Guidelines. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Court modified the federal

sentencing statute by severing and excising 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), “the provision of the federal

sentencing statute that makes the Guidelines mandatory.” Id., at 245. 

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court's decision in Booker “marked a major transformation

in the law of federal criminal sentencing.” United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 984 (9th

Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has held that Booker does not operate retroactively, and “does not

apply to cases on collateral review where the conviction was final as of the date of Booker's

publication.” United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant’s

conviction here was the year prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker. Accordingly,

defendant is not entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and not entitled to any relief

under Booker.

Further, the Court cannot modify petitioners' sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582()(2).

Section 3582(c)(2) allows the district court to modify a sentence where the applicable sentencing

range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission subsequent to the imposition of the

sentence. Booker did not lower sentencing ranges, nor was Booker an action “by the Sentencing

Commission”; therefore § 3582(c)(2), by its own terms, does not apply here. See United States v.

Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Conclusion

Petitioner waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. Moreover, even if the Court

found he had not waived her right to collaterally attack his sentence, Booker is not applicable

here and defendant is not entitled to any relief.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED dismissing petitioner’s motion to vacate, set

Case 3:06-cv-00950-L Document 1 Filed 01/29/07 Page 3 of 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

02cr1649/06cv950

4

aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

Jose Ramiro Becerra

Prison No. 82835-198

MCC San Diego

808 Union Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Richard Cheng

U.S. Attorney’s Office

880 Front Street, Room 6293

San Diego, CA 92101-8893

Case 3:06-cv-00950-L Document 1 Filed 01/29/07 Page 4 of 4