Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Madrigal-Navarro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 26, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RAMON MADRIGAL-NAVARRO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Defendant. (Doc. # 37). Defendant moves the court to reduce his sentence on the grounds that he is ineligible for minimum security confinement, as well as drug program and prerelease custody based upon his deportation status. The Court finds that the issues raised in the petition are appropriate for summary disposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that "A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 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 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).

RULING OF THE COURT

In this case, the record conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to bring a § 2255 motion. In the plea agreement, the Defendant waived "to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the guilty plea, conviction and sentence ... unless the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the greater of the high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing or statutory minimum term, if applicable." (Doc. # 18 at page 11.) This waiver is 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, 298 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). The Government recommended a sentence of 37 months as provided in the plea agreement. (Doc. # 18). The Court imposed a sentence of 37 months. (Doc. # 36). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack the sentence imposed.

Finally, the Defendant presents no grounds for relief under Section 2255. The Sentencing Reform Act gives the Bureau of Prisons the responsibility to "designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See United States v. Cubillos, 91 F.3d 1342, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has concluded that an alien's exclusion from a prison's drug treatment programs or community confinement based upon his deportation status does not violate the Constitution. See McClean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Defendant. (Doc. # 37) is denied.

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge

20090626

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.