Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00791/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00791-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Soto-Mendoza
Petitioner
USA
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcos Soto-Mendoza,

Petitioner,

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent.

No. CV-16-00791-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Marcos Soto-Mendoza’s § 2255 motions. 

(Docs. 8, 10). The government filed a Response (Docs. 14, 20) and Petitioner a Reply 

(15, 22). 

1. Factual and Procedural Background

In April 2013, Petitioner was tried by a jury and convicted of conspiracy to bring 

five illegal aliens into the United States (Count 1) and illegally bringing each of those 

five aliens into the United States (Counts 2-6). Petitioner was found not guilty of charges

that he was responsible for transporting two illegal aliens to the United States, resulting 

in their deaths (Counts 7-8). Despite his convictions, Petitioner maintained that he was 

not the guide for the aliens that had been apprehended. 

In Petitioner’s presentence report, he was assigned a ten-level enhancement for the 

deaths of two illegal aliens pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(7)(D). Petitioner’s post-trial 

counsel, Tamara Mulembo, objected to that enhancement claiming that the Supreme 

Court’s ruling in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) precluded enhancements 

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 8
- 2 -

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

for acquitted conduct. See (Doc. 182).1 At sentencing, the Court overruled Petitioner’s 

objection and applied the ten-level enhancement and sentenced Petitioner to 180 months 

of incarceration. 

Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and argued, in part, that 

the Court improperly enhanced his sentence because he was acquitted of the Counts 

relating to the deaths of the two aliens and, therefore, the Court could not use them to 

enhance his sentence. See (Doc. 14-1, pg. 77). The Ninth Circuit rejected Petitioner’s 

argument writing:

Soto-Mendoza argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment 

rights by enhancing his sentence due to the deaths of two aliens where the 

jury acquitted him of causing these deaths in counts VII and VIII. We do 

not reach Soto-Mendoza’s constitutional claim because the jury did not 

actually acquit Soto-Mendoza of causing the deaths. The jury instructions 

listed each element of the crime. The jury did convict Soto-Mendoza of 

bringing the aliens into the United States. The parties stipulated that the 

aliens identified in Counts VII and VIII died in the desert and that the 

autopsies indicated they died of heat-related ailments. There was no clear 

jury finding regarding Soto-Mendoza’s involvement in the deaths and thus 

there is no basis for Soto-Mendoza’s Sixth Amendment claim based on 

inconsistency.

(Doc. 14-2, pg. 6). 

Subsequently, Petitioner filed the pending § 2255 motions alleging that Ms. 

Mulembo was ineffective “for not taking the position during Petitioners [sic] sentencing 

that the District Courts [sic] preponderance of the evidence finding was contradictory to 

the jurys [sic] verdict which produced an absurd result, [sic] that violated both the Fifth 

and Sixth Amendment rights of Petitioner....” (Doc. 8, pg. 5). Petitioner also filed an 

amended § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel, 

Clay Hernandez. See (Doc. 10). More specifically, Petitioner claimed Mr. Hernandez was 

ineffective because he failed to investigate Petitioner’s statements relating to cell phones 

 

1 This refers to Document 182 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV. 

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 8
- 3 -

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

recovered from two of the illegal aliens he was convicted of transporting and for 

allegedly failing to follow Petitioner’s trial strategy. 

2. Discussion

Petitioner advances two arguments in his habeas petition, both relating to the

alleged ineffective assistance of his trial and post-trial counsel. To establish an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner “must demonstrate both: (1) that counsel’s 

performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his 

defense.” Miles v. Ryan, 713 F.3d 477, 486 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-93 (1984)). 

A. Clay Hernandez

i. Cellular Phones

In his amended habeas petition, Petitioner alleges that he overheard two of the 

aliens he entered the United States with, Juan Garcia and Abad Uriostegui, discussing 

how to minimize the significance of their roles in transporting themselves, Petitioner, and 

others to the United States. (Doc. 10, pg. 5). Petitioner states that he informed his trial 

counsel, Clay Hernandez, that obtaining Mr. Garcia and Mr. Uriostegui’s cellular phones 

was crucial in asserting his defense that he was being guided on the journey to the United 

States and was not the leader of the trip. Id.

The government opposes Petitioner’s argument and attached an affidavit from Mr. 

Hernandez to its Reply. (Doc. 21-1). In it, Mr. Hernandez states that Petitioner never

directed him to obtain cell phone records from all cellular phones seized from the 

material witnesses and states that only one cellular phone was seized in this case and was 

determined to belong to Petitioner. Id. That phone was the subject of extensive litigation 

and was the basis for a Motion for a New Trial filed by Mr. Hernandez after Petitioner 

was convicted. Id. at 4. 

Petitioner claims that that he “made it perfectly clear to [Mr. Hernandez] that he 

needed to get copies of . . . every cellular phone that was found during the arrest of all 

individuals, in order to investigate who the owners of those phones were and who was 

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 8
- 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

called during the trek from Mexico.” Id. at 5. Petitioner also claims that “[he] was 

prejudiced by the fact that no investigation into the link between Uriostegui and Garcia 

and the phones recovered from their possession was pursued by defense counsel, as the 

information gained therefrom could have been used to formulate a proper defense 

strategy . . . .” Id. at 7. 

More specifically, in Petitioner’s Motion for a New Trial, he argues that “the 

government disclosed evidence of a cellular phone the government believed to be taken 

from the [Petitioner’s] person during his arrest. In particular, the government’s disclosure 

included an evidence ‘log sheet’ which indicated that a cellular telephone was collected 

from the [Petitioner] at the scene of the incident.” (Doc. 133, pg. 3).2 At trial, Petitioner 

testified that he had a cell phone, but that phone “was actually taken from him by 

Uriostegui . . . before they embarked on their trek through the desert.” Id. If Mr. 

Uriostegui was, at one time, in possession of a cell phone, Petitioner’s own testimony 

indicates that the phone was his own phone, the contents of which were thoroughly 

examined. (Doc. 157, pg. 216-36).3

Petitioner’s claim is problematic and does not meet the standard for an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim established in Strickland v. Washington. Not only does 

Petitioner provide no evidentiary support to establish that either Mr. Uriostegui or Mr. 

Garcia were in possession of a separate cellular phone, he presupposes that their 

hypothetical phones would contain exculpatory evidence. See (Doc. 10, pg. 7) 

(“Petitioner was prejudiced by the fact that no investigation into the link between 

Uriostegui and Garcia and the phones recovered from their possession was pursued by 

defense counsel . . . .”). Strickland requires that Mr. Hernandez’s performance be 

deficient and prejudicial. Not only does the record indicate that Mr. Hernandez properly 

investigated and litigated issues related to the single discovered cellular phone, even if he 

had not, the phone was examined and there is no indication that it contained any 

 

2 This refers to Document 133 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV. 

3 This refers to Document 157 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV.

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 8
- 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

exculpatory evidence. Thus, Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

pertaining to cellular phones fails. 

ii. Legal Strategy

Petitioner also alleges that during depositions, he directed Mr. Hernandez to ask 

specific “questions in order to contradict [witnesses’] version of events, and in order to 

highlight the inconsistencies” in the witnesses’ testimony. (Doc. 10, pg. 5). Petitioner 

states that Mr. Hernandez failed to ask these questions, leading “to a complete breakdown 

in communication between Mr. Hernandez and [Petitioner].” Id. 5-6. The Court notes that 

Petitioner did not specify in his pleadings what questions he directed Mr. Hernandez to 

ask. Petitioner claims that as a result of this, he was forced “to move forward to trial 

unprepared to defend himself properly” and that “[n]o defense was affirmatively put 

forward.” Id. at 6. Contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, Mr. Hernandez states that, in 

preparation for trial, “[he] had several discussions with [Petitioner] about the incident 

which resulted in the indictment he was facing. During these discussions, [Petitioner] 

stated that he was not the guide for the aliens that had been apprehended and/or found 

deceased in the desert.” (Doc. 20-1, pg. 3). Only Mr. Hernandez’s version of events is 

supported by the record.

During trial, Petitioner’s testimony was solely focused around his defense that he 

was not a guide. See (Doc. 138, pg. 66)4(“Q: Okay. Marcos, were you ever the guide for 

these people? A: Never.”); id. at 104 (“Q: Okay. By this time you know you are the guide 

of the group, aren’t you? You know you’re the guide to the group, aren’t you? A: No. Q:

You had directed Abad, Marcos, Chiapas, Gloria, Juan what to buy, didn’t you? A: No, I 

never spoke to them about anything. Never.”); id. at 138 (Q: When you agreed to guide 

this group, how much were you going to get paid to guide this group? A: I was not going 

to be charging anything. I was going to pay to be -- get guided back to Phoenix.”)

Furthermore, in Petitioner’s Motion for a new trial, Mr. Hernandez writes: 

 

4 This refers to Document 138 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV.

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 5 of 8
- 6 -

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

This lends tremendous credence to the defendant’s defense, which was 

essentially that he was not the guide, but was rather an ordinary migrant 

who had his cell phone taken from him by the real guides.

(Doc. 133, pg. 7-8).5

The fact that the defendant did not have a cell phone on his person when he 

was found by Border Patrol seriously undercuts the government’s assertion 

that the defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes charged. It also bolsters 

the defendant’s defense that he was not the guide.

Id. at 8. 

As is evident, Petitioner put forth a defense specifically denying his leadership 

role in guiding the group. Petitioner has advanced zero evidence that Mr. Hernandez 

ignored his requests or failed to properly prepare him for trial. Petitioner has failed to 

show that Mr. Hernandez’s performance was deficient in any way and Petitioner’s 

argument that Mr. Hernandez was ineffective fails. 

iii. Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner alleges that his claims involve “[s]everal issues . . . which at the very 

least justify an evidentiary hearing.” (Doc. 22, pg. 1). Ordinarily, “a hearing is not 

automatically required on every section 2255 petition. Nonetheless, a hearing is 

mandatory whenever the record does not affirmatively manifest the factual or legal 

invalidity of the petitioner’s claims.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th 

Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted). 

Here, Petitioner states that an evidentiary hearing is required because of Mr. 

Hernandez’s alleged failure to obtain records and other evidence in order to demonstrate 

that Petitioner was not culpable as charged. A hearing is required if Petitioner makes 

“specific factual allegations which, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Id. Rather than 

advance specific factual allegations, Petitioner provides mere conclusory statements that 

if specific pieces of evidence were recovered, he would be exonerated. However, 

Petitioner fails to explain why those specific pieces of evidence would exonerate him. For 

 

5 This refers to Document 133 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV.

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

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

example, Petitioner alleges that he “instructed [Mr.] Hernandez to examine and get copies 

of the hospital records, and all property seized from anyone arrested relative to this 

attempt to travel to the USA. This information/evidence would have exonerated Movant.”

(Doc. 22, pg. 6). Petitioner fails to explain how the hospital records or property seized 

from those individuals arrested would exonerate him or even what information would be 

contained within those records.

Similarly, Petitioner alleges that he instructed Mr. Hernandez “to obtain not just 

the phone [Petitioner] had given [Mr. Uriostegui] – or records of the calls made while in 

his possession – but the records of all cell phone [sic] seized from parties arrested by the 

agents.” (Doc. 22, pg. 6). Again, Petitioner appears to presuppose the existence of 

multiple cellular phones without providing any evidence that a cellular phone, other than 

his own, was recovered during the investigation. The singular cellular phone that was 

seized was thoroughly inspected, with the phone’s contents, including contacts, incoming 

calls, outgoing calls, text messages, and images being recovered. (Doc. 157, pg. 216-36).6

Petitioner cannot assert merely conclusory statements as “merely conclusionary 

statements in a § 2255 motion are not enough to require a hearing . . . .” Wagner v. 

United States, 418 F.2d 618, 621 (9th Cir. 1969). Therefore, Petitioner’s request for an 

evidentiary hearing will be denied.

B. Tamara Mulembo

Petitioner also argues that his post-trial counsel, Tamara Mulembo, rendered 

ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. 

In his habeas petition, Petitioner argues:

Petitioners [sic] counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the jury’s 

verdict and the District Courts [sic] preponderance of the evidence findings 

was [sic] contridictory [sic] which produced an absurd result, that violated 

the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights of Petitioner. 

(Doc. 8-1, pg. 1). 

 

6 This refers to Document 157 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV.

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 7 of 8
- 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

27

28

Petitioner’s argument fails. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Ms. Mulembo raised 

this exact issue in her Reply to Objections to Petitioner’s Presentence Report. (Doc. 

195).7 There, she argued that “[t]he jury specifically relieved Mr. Soto-Mendoza of 

responsibility for the tragic outcome in this case through its not guilty verdicts. To 

nevertheless hold Mr. Soto-Mendoza responsible violates his right to trial by jury and the 

Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 5. This argument was properly made and preserved for appeal. 

It was later asserted by Petitioner’s appellate counsel and was the subject of a significant 

portion of Petitioner’s opening appellate brief. See (Doc. 14-1, pg. 77-88).

Therefore, despite Petitioner’s assertion that Ms. Mulembo was ineffective for 

failing to raise an argument pertaining to burdens of proof and Petitioner’s Fifth and 

Sixth Amendment rights, Ms. Mulembo properly raised the argument and the alleged 

representational error never occurred. Strickland requires deficient performance. There 

was no such deficient performance and Petitioner’s argument fails. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody are denied. (Docs. 8, 10).

2. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close its file in this matter. 

Dated this 16th day of January, 2020.

 

7 This refers to Document 195 in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case numbered: 4:11-

CR-02628-CKJ-BPV.

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 26 Filed 01/17/20 Page 8 of 8