Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00894/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00894-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Coloma-Suruy
Defendant
Carlos Jimenez-Coloma
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Carlos Jimenez-Coloma, 

a/k/a Fernando Coloma-Suruy

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 04-894-PHX-MHM

No. CV 05-1352-PHX-MHM (MS) 

ORDER

Movant, Carlos Jimenez-Coloma, is currently confined at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina. Movant filed his "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside

or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody" ("Motion") on December 6, 2004,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #44). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Morton Sitver who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion be

denied and dismissed in its entirety. (Dkt. #53). No objection to Magistrate Judge Sitver's

Report and Recommendation has been filed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate

Case 2:04-cr-00894-MHM Document 55 Filed 10/02/06 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

- 2 -

judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v.

Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2004, a criminal complaint was filed charging Movant with Re-entry After

Deportation, enhanced by a prior felony charge. (Dkt. #1). Movant was indicted on the same

charge on August 24, 2004. (Dkt. #11). 

Counsel for Movant filed a motion on December 16, 2004, to set a hearing for

Movant's request for new counsel, as Movant stated to counsel in a letter that he was

dissatisfied with his representation. (Dkt. #25). A hearing was held on January 5, 2005, and

this Court denied Movant's request for new counsel. (Dkt. #32). Shortly thereafter, Movant

agreed to plead guilty, and a plea hearing was held. (Dkt. #35). Movant admitted in the plea

agreement that he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (resulting in great bodily

harm injury), a felony, on May 21, 1999. (Dkt. #42). Movant further admitted that he was

deported from the United States on January 23, 2002. (Dkt. #42). On April 4, 2005, Movant

was sentenced to 41 months incarceration and two years supervised release. (Dkt. #40, 41).

 On May 5, 2005, Movant filed his "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

by a Person in Federal Custody" ("Motion") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #44).

Movant's motion contains three claims. (Dkt. #44). In his first two claims, Movant contends

that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made in regards to the provision that

waived his appeal rights, and that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to accept such

a provision. (Dkt. #44). In his third claim, Movant contends that his counsel was ineffective

for not procuring a lower sentence. (Dkt. #44). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case. The

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion be denied and dismissed in its entirety for the

following reasons: first, Movant's waiver of his appeal rights was made knowingly and

voluntarily; second, Movant's counsel's recommendation to accept this waiver provision was

Case 2:04-cr-00894-MHM Document 55 Filed 10/02/06 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

- 3 -

not unreasonable; and third, Movant's counsel was not ineffective for not procuring a lower

sentence. (Dkt. #53). 

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge. With regard to Movant's first two claims, the Court finds the transcript of

Movant's plea colloquy demonstrates that Movant entered into the plea agreement knowingly

and voluntarily. Movant was represented by counsel during the entire proceeding against

him, including at the plea hearing. Movant admitted the plea agreement was read to him in

Spanish and that he had the opportunity to ask his counsel questions surrounding the

agreement. (Dkt. #49). During the plea colloquy, the Magistrate Judge advised Movant that

by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to appeal his conviction and sentence if he went

to trial and was convicted, and when asked if he understood this, Movant answered "yes."

(Dkt. #49). The Court also finds that Movant's counsel was not ineffective in recommending

that Movant accept the waiver of his appeal rights. Such a waiver is standard in most plea

agreements offered by the Government. If counsel had insisted that the waiver provision be

removed, the Government could easily have rescinded its plea offer. 

Finally, in regards to Movant's third claim, the Court finds that Movant's counsel was

not ineffective for not procuring a lower sentence. During the plea colloquy, the Magistrate

Judge explained to Movant that the agreement provided for a maximum 71-month prison

term. (Dkt. #49). The Judge further explained that the agreement provided that Movant

would receive a sentence at the bottom end of the guideline range, depending on his criminal

history. (Dkt. #49). When asked if he had any questions regarding the guideline sentence

and the possible sentence, Movant stated that he did not. (Dkt. #49). Movant did not raise

any issue with the Magistrate Judge regarding his counsel's recommendation that he accept

the terms of the plea agreement. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Dkt. #53).

Case 2:04-cr-00894-MHM Document 55 Filed 10/02/06 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing Movant's claims in their

entirety. (Dkt. #44). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cr-00894-MHM Document 55 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 4