Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02252/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02252-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandra Marie Bowen
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

v. 

Sandra Marie Bowen, 

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV11-02252-PHX-SRB 

 CR09-00679-PHX-SRB 

ORDER 

 Movant, Sandra Marie Bowen, filed an Amended Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody on January 3, 

2012. (Doc. 4) She raised two grounds. Movant alleged that her lawyer was ineffective 

for failing to properly raise a Fourth Amendment issue under Arizona v. Gant and that her 

lawyer was ineffective in failing to warn her about the deportation consequences of her 

guilty plea and in failing to secure a plea agreement that would have avoided this 

collateral consequence. The United States filed a Motion to Dismiss and Response in 

Opposition to Movant’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 15) and Movant filed a Reply (Doc. 19). 

 On April 12, 2013, Movant filed a Motion for Return Seized Personal Property 

(sic) (Doc. 20) requesting the return of items of personal property that were seized at the 

time the vehicle she was riding in was stopped on June 1, 2009. 

 On May 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation 

recommending that both motions be denied. (Doc. 21) With respect to Movant’s § 2255 

motion, the Magistrate Judge found both Movant had expressly waived her rights to file 

Case 2:11-cv-02252-SRB Document 23 Filed 07/24/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

this motion in her plea agreement and, on the merits, Movant had failed to establish 

ineffective assistance of counsel. The Magistrate Judge also recommended denial of the 

Motion to Return Seized Personal Property because Movant’s plea agreement expressly 

provided for the forfeiture of any property seized by the Government in the course of its 

investigation and Movant expressly agreed to the forfeiture of these items in her plea 

agreement and during her plea colloquy. 

 On June 6, 2013, Movant filed a document entitled “Petitioner Reply to 

Government Rebuttal to Motion for Return of Personal Property” (Doc. 22) which the 

Court has considered Movant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. With respect to the recommendation that her Motion for return of 

seized personal property should be denied, Movant argues that Special Agent Jose 

Melendez had offered to return the personal property that was in the rental car on the date 

of her arrest. 

 With respect to the recommendation for denial of her § 2255 motion, Movant 

raises an entirely new argument of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel not raised in 

her § 2255 motion. Movant now argues that she signed the plea agreement because she 

thought it was for a 10 year prison term, if she did not sign it her son would get 30 years 

in prison and she would get life, and she did not receive a two-level decrease in her 

advisory guideline range under U.S.S.G §3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility, 

Movant argues that had she received that adjustment her sentence would have been 8 

years less. None of the arguments in Movant’s document entitled “Petitioner Reply to 

Government Rebuttal to Motion for Return of Personal Property” address the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or object to any of the facts or legal 

conclusions upon which the recommendation is based. Movant cannot raise new 

arguments in her Objection not presented in her § 2255 motion. Even if the Court were 

to consider these arguments they are plainly without merit.1

 

 

1

 Movant’s advisory guideline range included a 3 level downward adjustment under U.S.S.G.§ 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Under the guidelines her total offense level was 43 and her criminal history category was 1 resulting in a guideline 

Case 2:11-cv-02252-SRB Document 23 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 After review of the Motion, Response, Reply, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, and Movant’s Objections, the Court finds that the Objections are 

without merit. The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. Therefore; 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Movant’s Objections contained in the document 

entitled “Petitioner Reply to Government Rebuttal to Motion for Return of Personal 

Property.” (Doc. 22) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED incorporating the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 21) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

is denied. (Doc. 4) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Return of Seized Personal 

Property is denied. (Doc. 20) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal regarding the § 2255 motion is denied because 

Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 24th day of July, 2013. 

 recommended sentence of life. Movant’s actual sentence was 216 months. 

Case 2:11-cv-02252-SRB Document 23 Filed 07/24/13 Page 3 of 3