Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01057/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Antonio Ceballos-Novela
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

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

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Marco Antonio Ceballos-Novela, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1057-PHX-DGC (DKD)

No. CR 07-906-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Movant Marco Antonio Ceballos-Novela, who is confined in the Corrections

Corporation of America–Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se

“Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate in Federal Custody, (28 U.S.C. § 2255).” On June

12, 2008, the Court denied the Motion with leave to amend. On July 9, 2008, Movant filed

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

Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court will summarily dismiss the Amended

Motion.

I. Procedural History

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pled guilty to Illegal Re-Entry After

Deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On March 31, 2008, the Court sentenced

Movant to a 51-month term of imprisonment followed by 3 years on supervised release.

Movant seeks a reduction of his sentence. He argues that his attorney did not advise

him of the “fast track” or “early disposition” program and he therefore received a sentence

greater than he would have received under these programs.

Case 2:08-cv-01057-DGC--DKD Document 4 Filed 07/22/08 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 -

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 has waived challenges to his sentence. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

has found that 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). 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. Jeronimo,

398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory right to bring a

§ 2255 action challenging the length of his sentence. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431,

433 (9th Cir. 1994); 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 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

Case 2:08-cv-01057-DGC--DKD Document 4 Filed 07/22/08 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 -

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); see also Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1156 n.4

(declining to decide whether waiver of all statutory rights included claims implicating the

voluntariness of the waiver). 

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

The defendant waives any and all motions, defenses, probable

cause determinations, and objections which the defendant could

assert to the information or indictment, or to the petition to

revoke, or to the Court’s entry of judgment against the defendant

and imposition of sentence upon the defendant providing the

sentence is consistent with this agreement. The defendant

further waives: (1) any right to appeal the Court’s entry of

judgment against defendant; (2) any right to appeal the

imposition of sentence upon defendant under Title 18, United

States Code, Section 3742 (sentence appeals); and (3) any right

to collaterally attack defendant’s conviction and sentence

under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, or any

other collateral attack. The defendant acknowledges that

this waiver shall result in the dismissal of any appeal or

collateral attack the defendant might file challenging his/her

conviction or sentence in this case.

(Doc. #47) (emphasis added). Movant indicated in his plea agreement that he had discussed

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

voluntarily. (Doc. #47).

Movant’s assertions in his amended § 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 his plea as voluntarily made. Consequently, the Court finds that Movant waived

the sentencing issues raised in his amended § 2255 motion. Thus, the Court will summarily

dismiss the Amended Motion. Accordingly,

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 2:08-cv-01057-DGC--DKD Document 4 Filed 07/22/08 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 ORDERED that the Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #2 in CV 08-1057-PHX-DGC (DKD)) is

denied and that the civil action opened in connection with this Amended Motion (CV 08-

1057-PHX-DGC (DKD)) is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 22nd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01057-DGC--DKD Document 4 Filed 07/22/08 Page 4 of 4