Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02070/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02070-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Rodriguez-Rios
Petitioner
United States of America
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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Respondent/Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arturo Rodriguez-Rios, 

Movant/Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV11-2070-PHX-SRB

 CR08-1442-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Defendant Arturo Rodriguez-Rios was convicted after a jury trial of Conspiracy to

Commit Hostage Taking, Hostage Taking, Possessing, Using and Carrying a Firearm During

and in Relation to a Crime of Violence; and Harboring Illegal Aliens for Financial Gain. He

was sentenced to a total of 264 months in prison. Defendant's conviction and sentence were

affirmed on appeal. On October 24, 2011 the Defendant filed the pending Motion Under 28

U.S.C. §2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody

(hereinafter "2255 Motion").

Defendant raises four grounds in his 2255 Motion. In Ground One, Defendant asserts

ineffective assistance of counsel before trial claiming defense counsel was ineffective during

plea negotiations and in his preparation for trial. In Ground Two Defendant claims defense

counsel was ineffective in trial. In Ground Three Defendant asserts that his conviction was

obtained by prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor failed to provide Brady material

Case 2:11-cv-02070-SRB Document 20 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

and to correct testimony known to be perjury. Ground Four alleges ineffective assistance of

counsel on appeal asserting that trial counsel should have withdrawn as counsel on appeal

and should have raised a claim of insufficiency of the evidence in his appeal.

The Government has responded in opposition to the 2255 Motion and Defendant has

filed a reply. 

On July 20, 2012 the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation

recommending that the 2255 Motion be denied. With respect to the claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant failed to establish that

counsel was ineffective at the pretrial stage, at trial or on appeal. On Defendant's claim that

he is entitled to relief based on government misconduct, the Magistrate Judge concluded that

Defendant procedurally defaulted this claim by failing to raise the issue on appeal, by failing

to show that the claim could not have been presented on appeal because of later factual

development, and by failing to show grounds for excusing the procedural default. Defendant

timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

In his objections Defendant restates and re-urges the same arguments made in his

2255 Motion and reply. He continues to believe that the issue of alleged false statements

during the pretrial deposition of a material witness demonstrates prejudice despite the

Magistrate Judge's complete and correct explanation of how this could not have been raised

during trial when the witness did not lie at trial. Defendant also ignores the Magistrate

Judge's recognition that the evidence against Defendant at trial was overwhelming and that,

even if there was a way to attempt to impeach this witness with his false deposition

testimony, it would have made no difference to the outcome. 

In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel the Defendant must demonstrate

both that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that

there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors the result of the

proceeding would have been different. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Defendant has failed to show either deficient performance at trial or that if counsel had done

what Defendant suggests could have been done the result would have been different.

Case 2:11-cv-02070-SRB Document 20 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the alleged failure to

present evidence at trial of Defendant's mother's partial payment of Defendant's smuggling

fees. As of this date, almost four years after Defendant was arrested and indicted, he still

cannot produce any such evidence other than his claim that his mother made such a payment.

The trial record reflects that Defendant testified at trial that he was a smuggled alien and that

his mother had sent a partial payment of his smuggling fee. He testified that when he arrived

in Phoenix the smugglers raised the fee and that he, too, was a victim.

Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that it is pure speculation

that the Government's plea offer would have been more beneficial had Defendant's counsel

known during plea negotiations that one of the material witnesses had lied during the

deposition about prior entries into the United States or had evidence of a smuggling fee

payment by Defendant's mother. The Magistrate Judge points out, and the Court agrees, that

Defendant fails to state whether this information was or was not utilized with the

Government in plea negotiations. Defendant also cannot show that these two minor points

would have resulted in plea negotiations yielding a better plea offer. 

Defendant is simply wrong in his continued assertion that trial counsel was ineffective

in failing to advise him of the availability of a fast-track plea agreement. The United States

Sentencing Guidelines § 5K3.1 authorizes a downward departure of up to four levels

pursuant to a fast-track or early disposition program. Such a program must be authorized by

the United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the district in which

the court resides. Such a program is not available now and was not available at the time of

Defendant's plea negotiations for the crimes for which the Defendant was charged. 

Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that his claim that the

Government's failure to provide him with Brady material was procedurally defaulted, that

he has not demonstrated cause and prejudice for such a failure or that the information was

not available to him prior to his appeal. Defendant admits that Immigration form I-213,

which contains information about the Government witnesses, was available to him at the time

of his appeal. Defendant simply believes that other information should have been made

Case 2:11-cv-02070-SRB Document 20 Filed 09/17/12 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

available such as criminal backgrounds for the witnesses derived from state or foreign

records and FBI rap-sheets. But Defendant has no evidence that the information about the

material witnesses contained on Form I-213 is incomplete or that there was any criminal

record of these material witnesses to disclose. The Court finds Defendant's argument to be

without merit and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there was a procedural default that

is not excused as to Ground Three.

 Defendant objects to the finding that his counsel was not ineffective on appeal for

failing to raise the sufficiency of evidence claim. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate

Judge on this issue. Defendant has not demonstrated that counsel's failure to raise the nonmeritorious claim of insufficiency of the evidence fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness or that there was a lack of evidence that an appellate court would have found

warranted relief. Defendant continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence and strength of

the Government's case against him.

Throughout his objections Defendant attempts to paint his claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel as a lack of communication that was the fault of defense counsel. One

of the two issues raised on appeal was the claim that the Court erred in failing to grant

Defendant's requests for new counsel. The appellate court affirmed the Court's denial of new

counsel concluding, as had this Court, that the disagreements between Defendant and counsel

were related solely to their differing views regarding the strength of the evidence and wisdom

of accepting the Government's plea offer. The record reflects that if there was a lack of

communication it was a lack of Defendant's willingness to communicate with counsel and

not the lack of defense counsel attempting to communicate with Defendant. This Court's

inquiry of the Defendant at the time of the requests for new counsel addressed these issues

and Defendant cannot now complain that his refusals to communicate fully with his lawyer

and to give serious consideration to his lawyer's advice with respect to the strength of the

Government's case and the advisability of accepting a plea offer can now justify the setting

aside of his conviction and sentence.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

Case 2:11-cv-02070-SRB Document 20 Filed 09/17/12 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 2255 Motion is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable

whether the motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000).

DATED this 17th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02070-SRB Document 20 Filed 09/17/12 Page 5 of 5