Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00215/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Gomez Rios
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

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

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jesus Gomez Rios, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 06-0875-PHX-DGC

No. CV 07-0215-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Movant Jesus Gomez Rios, who is confined in the Central Arizona Detention Center

in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate in Federal

Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2255). The Court will summarily dismiss the motion.

I. Procedural History

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pled guilty to Transportation of Illegal Aliens,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) (1) (A) (ii). On January 22, 2007, the Court sentenced

Movant to a 21-month term of imprisonment followed by 3 years on supervised release.

Movant seeks a reduction of his sentence. He argues that his First, Sixth, Seventh and

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights are being violated because as a deportable

alien, he is ineligible for a one-year sentence reduction for attending a drug treatment

program during incarceration and for early release to a half-way house.

II. Summary Dismissal

A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2255 application “[i]f it plainly appears

from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving

Case 2:07-cv-00215-DGC--MEA Document 2 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 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

1

In addition, the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected Movant’s equal protection argument

in McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999). 

- 2 -

party is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the

United States District Courts. When this standard is satisfied, neither a hearing nor a

response from the government is required. See Marrow v. United States, 772 F.2d 525, 526

(9th Cir. 1985); Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover,

if there has been a valid waiver of the right to file a federal habeas corpus petition, a court

lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.

2005).

In this case, the record shows that summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) is warranted

and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion because Movant has waived the right to

bring a § 2255 motion.1

III. Waiver

Movant has waived challenges to his sentence. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

has found that there are “strict standards for waiver of constitutional rights.” United States

v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2005). It is impermissible to presume

waiver from a silent record, and the Court must indulge every reasonable presumption

against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. United States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d

1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004). In this action, Movant’s waiver was clear, express, and

unequivocal.

Plea agreements are contractual in nature, and their plain language will generally be

enforced if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo,

398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive the statutory right to bring a

§ 2255 action challenging the length of his sentence. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431,

433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992). The only

claims that cannot be waived are claims that the waiver itself was involuntary or that

ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver involuntary. See Washington, 422 F.3d

Case 2:07-cv-00215-DGC--MEA Document 2 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

at 871 (holding that a plea agreement that waives the right to file a federal habeas petition

pursuant to § 2254 is unenforceable with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

that challenges the voluntariness of the waiver); Pruitt, 32 F.3d at 433 (expressing doubt that

a plea agreement could waive a claim that counsel erroneously induced a defendant to plead

guilty or accept a particular plea bargain); Abarca, 985 F.2d at 1014 (expressly declining to

hold that a waiver forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the

waiver); see also Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1156 n.4 (declining to decide whether waiver of all

statutory rights included claims implicating the voluntariness of the waiver). 

As part of his plea agreement, Movant made the following waiver:

The defendant waives any and all motions, defenses, probable

cause determinations, and objections which the defendant could

assert to the information or indictment, or to the petition to

revoke, or to the court’s entry of judgment against defendant and

imposition of sentence upon defendant, provided the sentence is

consistent with this agreement. The defendant further waives:

(1) any right to appeal the court’s entry of judgment against

defendant; (2) any right to appeal the imposition of sentence

upon defendant under Title 18, United States Code, Section

3742 (sentence appeals); and (3) any right to collaterally attack

defendant’s conviction and sentence under Title 28, United

States Code, Section 2255, or any other collateral attack. 

(Doc. #23). Movant indicated in his plea agreement that he had discussed the terms with his

attorney, agreed to the terms and conditions, and entered into the plea voluntarily (Id.). 

Movant’s assertions in his § 2255 motion all pertain to sentencing and do not pertain

to the voluntariness of the waiver. Movant expressly waived issues regarding the imposition

of sentence and expressly waived the right to bring a § 2255 motion. The Court accepted his

plea as voluntarily made. Consequently, the Court finds that Movant waived the sentencing

issues raised in his § 2255 motion. Thus, the Court will summarily dismiss the motion for

lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00215-DGC--MEA Document 2 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate in Federal

Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2255) (Doc. #24 in CR 06-0875-PHX-DGC) is denied and that the

civil action opened in connection with this Motion (CV 07-0215-PHX-DGC (MEA)) is

dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of the civil action

accordingly.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00215-DGC--MEA Document 2 Filed 02/22/07 Page 4 of 4