Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02717/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02717-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Alcazar
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEDRO ALCAZAR,

Defendant. /

No. CR 06-00298 CRB

ORDER

On June 7, 2006, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of illegal reentry, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. Under a plea agreement, Defendant waived the right to file any

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

sentencing guidelines applicable to Defendant’s case called for a sentence of 46 to 57

months. The government recommended a sentence of 51 months. The Court imposed a

sentence of 30 months based on the unique circumstances of this case.

Now pending before the Court is a motion submitted by Defendant in which he

requests a reduction of up to two points in the level of his sentence. To the extent that

Defendant is requesting an adjustment to his sentence, this Court no longer enjoys

jurisdiction to grant such relief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); see also United States v. Penna,

319 F.3d 509, 510- 12 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174 F.3d 1024,

1029 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Case 3:07-cv-02717-CRB Document 2 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\0298cr\order1.wpd 2

To the extent that Defendant seeks relieve for a violation of his constitutional rights

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he waived the ability to pursue such habeas relief in his plea

agreement. Further, the Court’s failure to award a reduction two-level reduction in

Defendant’s sentencing level does not constitute a violation of his right to due process, since

such a reduction is wholly dependent upon a motion by the government. Finally, any failure

by the government or the Court in failing to award such a reduction would be harmless error

in light of the Court’s downward departure in this case. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02717-CRB Document 2 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 2