The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Movant, Arturo Alvarado-Sotomayor (Alvarado) seeks to have vacated his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and two other counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. None of the claimed defects warrant relief either because of procedural default and/or the lack of merit. The motion should be denied.
Alvarado was indicted along with a co-conspirator, on December 2, 2004. The Indictment alleged: in Count 1, a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; in Count 3, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute (1,227 grams); in Count 5 (on the same day as Count 3) possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute (4.5 grams). Eventually, on February 28, 2008, Alvarado pled guilty to these counts. Sentencing occurred on May 30, 2006; Alvarado received concurrent sentences of 151 months on each count as well as 60 months supervised release (concurrent) for each count. Docket #55. The Honorable Morrison England refused to find super-acceptance of responsibility, or that the "safety valve" applied.*fn1
An appeal was taken on two issues: (1) that the trial court erred in not specifying the reasons for safety valve denial; (2) that a remand was required to permit Alvarado to debrief with the government so that he could meet the safety valve requirement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court finding that the record itself demonstrated that the safety valve was not justified, and that Alvarado demonstrated no reason why he had not debriefed at an appropriate time while the case was pending.
Alvarado lists three "grounds" for vacating his conviction. The first ground contains 8 claimed defects:
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel, unspecified, except that "cousel (sic) was not able to tell that the Indictment was Bad";
2. Counsel pleaded Alvarado guilty to "two counts of the same offense";
3. Counsel permitted Alvarado to plead to nonexistent criminal offenses;
4. Alvarado's plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (reasons unspecified);
5. Neither Congress nor the courts had the power to modify the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to allow a defendant to testify against himself;
6. Same as (5) except that the Sixth Amendment is involved and the purported change is to ...