Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cr-00422/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cr-00422-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Luis Flores
Defendant
USA
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE LUIS FLORES, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-10-502 OWW

(No. CR-F-08-422 OWW) 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

On March 16, 2010, Petitioner Jose Luis Flores, proceeding 

in pro per, timely filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Petitioner was charged with being a deported alien found in

the United States, a felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a written Plea Agreement. 

Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, Petitioner specifically agreed:

III. Agreements by Defendant

The defendant fully understands and agrees as

1

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 8
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

follows:

...

(d) Defendant stipulates to the truth of all

the facts in the factual basis set forth in

section V to this agreement;

...

(f) The defendant agrees not to move for a

downward departure or reduction of his

sentence beyond the four (4) level departure

agreed to by the government under this plea

agreement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. The

defendant understands and agrees that this

agreement by him includes, but is not limited

to, not moving for a downward departure of

his offense level, criminal history category,

or criminal history points as defined by the

United States Sentencing Guidelines ...

Furthermore, defendant shall not argue, by

way of reference to factors under 18 U.S.C. §

3553, for a term of imprisonment of less than

fifty-one (51) months.

(g) The defendant is aware that Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3742 affords a

defendant the right to appeal any sentence

imposed. Acknowledging this, the defendant

knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive all

Constitutional and statutory rights to appeal

his conviction and sentence, including but

not limited to an express waiver of appeal of

this plea (including any venue and statute of

limitations issues) and to attack

collaterally his mental competence, and his

plea, or his sentence, including but not

limited to, filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. §

2255, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, or 18 U.S.C. § 3742,

or otherwise. If the defendant ever attempts

to vacate his plea, dismiss the underlying

charges, or reduce or set aside his sentence

on any of the counts to which he is pleading

guilty, the government shall have the

following rights: (1) to prosecute the

defendant on any count to which he pleaded

guilty; (2) to reinstate any counts that may

be dismissed under this agreement; and (3) to

file any new charges that would otherwise be

barred by this agreement. The decision to

2

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 8
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

pursue any or all of these options is solely

in the discretion of the United States

Attorney’s Office. By signing this

agreement, the defendant agrees to waive any

objections, motions, and defenses he might

have to the government’s decision, including

Double Jeopardy. In particular, he agrees

not to raise any objections based on the

passage of time with respect to such counts

including, but not limited to, any statutes

of limitations or any objections based on the

Speedy Trial Act or the Speedy Trial Clause

of the Sixth Amendment ....

The United States specifically agreed:

IV. Agreements by the Government

The government agrees as follows:

(a) The government will recommend a two-level

reduction (if the offense level is less than

16) or a three-level reduction (if the

offense level reaches 16) in the computation

of his offense level if the defendant clearly

demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for

his conduct as defined in Section 3E1.1 of

the United Sentencing Commission Guidelines

Manual;

(b) The government will recommend that the

defendant’s offense level be adjusted

downward an additional four (4) levels for

agreeing to an ‘early disposition’ of this

case, under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, without a trial

and without filing any pretrial motions or

any objections to the presentence report

dated December 22, 2008, and if the defendant

is sentenced the same day he pleads guilty;

and 

(c) The government will recommend that

defendant be sentenced at the low end of the

applicable U.S. Sentencing Guideline range. 

This will result in a term of imprisonment of

fifty-one (51) months.

The factual basis for the Plea Agreement was:

The defendant concedes that he will plead,

and is pleading, guilty to the crime set

3

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 8
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

forth in the indictment, because he is, in

fact, guilty of that offense. Defendant

further agrees that the following are the

true and correct facts of this case:

(1) Defendant is a native and citizen of

Mexico and is not a citizen of the United

States of America;

(2) On or about August 22, 2007, the

defendant was removed from the United States;

(3) The defendant was found in the Eastern

District of California on or about October 9,

2008;

(4) The defendant’s re-entry into the United

States was without the permission of the

United States Attorney General or the

Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security; and 

(5) On or about June 8, 2005, the defendant

was convicted of corporal injury to spouse,

cohabitant, child’s parent in violation of

California Penal Code § 273.5(a), in the

Superior Court of California, County of

Riverside, and the defendant was sentenced to

two years imprisonment (Case No. RIF123913)

Petitioner was sentenced on March 16, 2009 to a term of 51 months

incarceration. Petitioner did not file a Notice of Appeal.

As grounds for this motion, Petitioner asserts the

ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner contends:

Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

his failure to make recommendation regarding

whether defendant should accept a downward

departure or reduction of his sentence beyond

four (4) level departure.

Supporting facts: counsel could have argued

on wheather [sic] the Government theory of 16

points [sic] level was a valid issue, because

of defendant prior record was not an

aggravated felony in which the defendant

points went over 16 level instead should have

stayed before the 16 level.

4

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 8
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

Petitioner asserts that Respondent “made a deal of trickery,

deceitful tactics” because “[w]hen the Government stated that if

the defendant level was at 16 and it was below 16 defendant would

get the four (4) level departure and if it was over 16 and above

defendant would not get four (4) level departure the Government

had already known that defendant had a felony.” Petitioner

argues that “the Government had already pre-predicted outcome in

their calculation of already knowing that defendant would

automatic be above the 16 level, and therefore the defendant was

already at a disadvantage, and Attorney refusal to raise claim

about the four (4) legal departure would constitute Ineffective

Assistance Of Counsel by his inadvertence, ignorance, or poor

strategic choice. [SIC]” Petitioner contends:

The defendant could have made an intelligent

decision on to how to handle the four (4)

level reduction if had known the government

was going to use prior conviction of a

previous felony, (or) could have made a

counter plea that includes the reduction

level. Due process requires that any

ambiguity be construed against the government

and in accordance with the defendant’s

reasonable understanding of agreement ... The

counsel failure to argue to the district

court the four level downward departure under

USSG § 5k3.1 violated constitutional

guarantees of equal protection, under Due

Process of fifth Amendment, failed under

plain error review because, Attorney failed

to identify any precedent, binding or other,

that held that limited availability of fasttrack departure violated equal protection ...

Plea bargaining presents an opportunity for

prosecutors and defense counsel to undercut

the purpose of guidelines sentencing. The

defendant prior violation of California Penal

Code § 273.5(a) is not considered an

aggravated felony and did not violate Ex5

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 5 of 8
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

Post-Facto and cannot be used on defendants

previous deportation for illegal re-entry and

the penalties are unambiguous at time of

commission of said offense ....

A defendant may waive the statutory right to bring a Section

2255 motion challenging his conviction or sentence. The Ninth

Circuit holds that a waiver of the right to file a Section 2255

motion made pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement is

enforceable except with respect to a claim that the waiver or the

plea was involuntary or the result of ineffective assistance of

counsel. Washington v. Lambert, 422 F.3d 864, 870-871 (9th

Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1074 (2006).

Here, Petitioner’s motion makes no claim that the waiver in

the Plea Agreement of his right to file a Section 2255 motion was

involuntary or the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Therefore, Petitioner waived his right to challenge the sentence

imposed on him because of alleged ineffective assistance of

counsel. 

Moreover, even if Petitioner had not waived his right to

bring this Section 2255 motion, Petitioner’s motion is without

merit. 

Petitioner’s motion appears to be based on a fundamental

misunderstanding of the terms of the Plea Agreement and the

operation of the Sentencing Guidelines in his case. The fourlevel reduction to which Respondent agreed was because of

Petitioner’s early disposition of the case pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

5K3.1; it had nothing to do with Petitioner’s offense level being

6

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 6 of 8
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

over or under 16. Whether Petitioner’s offense level was over or

under 16 pertained to a recommendation for either a two or a

three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”)

recommended a guideline range of 77 to 96 months. The PSR noted

that, if the Government recommended a four-level reduction

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, the guideline range would be 51-63

months. Petitioner was sentenced to 51 months, the low end of

that guideline range, pursuant to the terms of the Plea

Agreement. Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel based on counsel’s failure to move for a four-level

reduction pursuant to § 5K3.1 at sentencing is meaningless

because the Government did so and sentence was imposed pursuant

to the terms of the Plea Agreement.

Petitioner’s claim he was denied the effective assistance of

counsel because of counsel’s failure to object that Petitioner’s

conviction of violation of California Penal Code § 273.5(a) was

not an “aggravated felony” is without merit. U.S.S.G. §

2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides:

If the defendant previously was deported ...

after - 

(A) a conviction for a felony that is ...

(ii) a crime of violence ..., increase [the

base offense level of 8) by 16 levels ....

 

Application Note 1(B)(iii) to § 2L1.2 states:

“Crime of violence” means any of the

following: murder, manslaughter, kidnaping,

aggravated assault, forcible sex offenses,

statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor,

7

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 7 of 8
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

robbery, arson, extortion, extortionate

extension of credit, burglary of a dwelling,

or any offense under federal, state, or local

law that has as an element the use, attempted

us, or threatened use of physical force

against the person of another. 

Petitioner admitted in the Plea Agreement and under oath during

the change of plea proceedings that he was convicted prior to his

deportation from the United States of infliction of corporal

injury on a spouse/child. 

For the reasons stated:

1. Petitioner Jorge Luis Flores’ motion to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

Case 1:08-cr-00422-LJO Document 18 Filed 03/25/10 Page 8 of 8