Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00447/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00447-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Roberto Ron-Ron
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Oscar Roberto Ron-Ron, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-16-0447-PHX-NVW (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Petitioner Oscar Roberto Ron-Ron filed this Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Section 2255 Motion”) after he had entered a 

plea of guilty to importation of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 42 months to 

be followed by a term of supervised release. (CR-15-00562 (“CR”) Doc. 29) He argues 

that he is entitled to relief because he received poor legal advice, his sentence was 

excessive, and he did not understand his plea agreement. (Doc. 1 at 5) As explained 

below, the Court recommends that this Motion be denied. 

BACKGROUND

 On June 4, 2015, Ron-Ron was found guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, for 

importation of a controlled substance. (Doc. 4, Ex. 1) During his change of plea 

colloquy, the Court reviewed the terms of his plea agreement. (Doc. 4, Ex. 2) Ron-Ron 

confirmed that his plea agreement had been read to him in Spanish, he had understood it, 

Case 2:16-cv-00447-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

had had enough time to discuss the plea agreement with his attorney, and that his attorney 

had satisfactorily answered all of his questions about it. (Id. at 6:8-16) He stated that no 

one had made any promises to get him to enter the plea agreement and he confirmed that 

no one forced, threatened, or coerced him in any way to enter a plea of guilty. (Id. at 

6:17-22) He confirmed that he understood the charge against him and the possible 

penalties and consequences of the charge. (Id. at 6:23-8:1) 

 During the plea colloquy, Ron-Ron’s attorney told the Court that he had provided 

Ron-Ron with an estimate of his likely sentence. (Id. at 10:8-15) The Court confirmed 

that Ron-Ron understood that these estimates were not binding on the Court at 

sentencing. (Id. at 10:16-24) Ron-Ron confirmed that he understood, and waived, his 

right to a trial by jury, an appeal, and a collateral attack on his judgment and sentence. 

(Id. at 11:3-21; 13:13-17) He agreed that he was satisfied with the work his attorney had 

done for him. (Id. at 12:9-12) 

 Ron-Ron also admitted to the factual basis of his plea. (Id. at 14:13-15:24) At the 

conclusion of the colloquy, the Court found that Ron-Ron had entered into his plea 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. (Id. at 15:25-16:3) 

 At his sentencing hearing, the Court granted Ron-Ron a two-level downward 

variance and sentenced Ron-Ron to a term of 42 months to be followed by a three year 

term of supervised release. (Doc. 4, Ex. 1 at 13-17) Ron-Ron timely filed this Motion 

and the government timely responded. (Docs. 1, 4) Ron-Ron did not reply. 

DISCUSSION

 In his Section 2255 Motion, Ron-Ron argues that he is entitled to relief because 

(1) he received “poor or insufficient” legal advice because (a) his sentence did not 

account for his personal circumstances and (b) he did not file a direct appeal; and (2) he 

signed a plea agreement without fully understanding it. (Doc. 1 at 4-5) 

 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. To prevail on his claims of ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel, Ron-Ron would have to show that his attorney’s performance 

Case 2:16-cv-00447-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

was deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result of that deficiency. Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

 First, Ron-Ron claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he 

did not think that his “personal circumstances,” namely his addiction to 

methamphetamine, was “taken into account by the Court.” (Doc. 1 at 5) However, as 

Ron-Ron acknowledges, the Court read his sentencing memorandum. (Id.; Doc. 4, Ex. 1 

at 3) Ron-Ron’s counsel argued for a below-guideline sentence because of his addiction, 

his non-violent history, and his extensive family support. (Doc. 4, Ex. 1 at 7-9) During 

sentencing, the Court acknowledged his addiction and his absence of prior criminal 

history. (Doc. 4, Ex. 1 at 10) That the Court considered these arguments and did not find 

them as persuasive as Ron-Ron had hoped is not ineffective assistance of counsel.

 Next, Ron-Ron claims that “[b]ecause of poor or insufficient legal advice, I did 

not present any [appellate] petition.” (Doc. 1 at 4) However, in his plea agreement, RonRon agreed to waive his right to an appeal and, during his plea colloquy, the Court 

confirmed that he understood he was waiving this right. (Doc. 4, Ex. 2 at 11:3-14) RonRon’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise Ron-Ron to file an appeal after he 

had waived that same right. 

Failure to Understand Plea Agreement. Ron-Ron claims that “[b]ecause of my 

limited English, and my poor knowledge of the laws, I did not fully understand the extent 

of the [plea] proceedings.” (Doc. 1 at 5) This claim is contradicted by the record and, 

therefore, fails. 

 During his plea colloquy, Ron-Ron was assisted by a Spanish language 

interpreter.1

 (Doc 4, Ex. 2) Ron-Ron confirmed to the Court that the written plea 

agreement was read to him in Spanish, he understood it, his counsel had answered all his 

questions about it, and he was satisfied with the representation that he had received. (Id. 

at 6, 12) 

 

1

 The record reflects that Ron-Ron was similarly assisted by a Spanish language interpreter during his initial appearance, detention and preliminary hearings, arraignment and detention hearings, and at sentencing. (CR Docs. 2, 6, 13, 26) 

Case 2:16-cv-00447-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

 The representations made by Ron-Ron at the change of plea hearing, “as well as 

any findings made by the judge accepting the plea, constitute a formidable barrier in any 

subsequent collateral proceedings.” Blackledge v. Allison, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629 (1977). 

See also United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Statements made by 

a defendant during a guilty plea hearing carry a strong presumption of veracity in 

subsequent proceedings attacking the plea.”); United States v. Anderson, 993 F.2d 1435, 

1438 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Statements made by a criminal defendant contemporaneously with 

his plea should be accorded great weight because solemn declarations made in open court 

carry a strong presumption of verity.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). 

Instead of attempting to satisfy this high burden, Ron-Ron made only a blanket assertion 

of a language barrier with no explanation for the direct contradictions between his 

statements during his plea colloquy and his allegations in his Section 2255 Motion. Muth 

v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, this claim fails. 

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Oscar Roberto Ron-Ron’s Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. (Doc. 1) 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003). 

Case 2:16-cv-00447-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 25th day of July, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00447-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 5 of 5