UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Jesus Beltran-Zuniga pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to import marijuana and aiding and abetting. Pursuant to his plea agreement, both Beltran-Zuniga's counsel and the government recommended a guideline range of 30 to 37 months, and his counsel requested the low-end sentence of 30 months. (See Docket nos. 58 (Plea Agreement), 98 (government's sentencing summary chart), 107 (Beltran-Zuniga's sentencing summary chart).) The Court sentenced him to 37 months' imprisonment followed by supervised release. (Docket no. 123 (Judgment).) Under his plea agreement, Beltran-Zuniga waived appeal and collateral attack unless the Court both denied him the recommended minor role adjustment and also sentenced him to a custodial term higher than high end of the agreed-upon recommended guideline range. (Plea Agreement at 8:11--22.) Since BeltranZuniga was sentenced within that range, he has waived collateral attack.
Ignoring the fact that he had waived collateral attack, Beltran-Zuniga filed a motion to vacate his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is a boilerplate pleading that has been photocopied so many times it has become nearly illegible and some sections have to be hand-written in. This pleading has apparently been circulating among prisoners, and its arguments have consistently and repeatedly been denied as meritless by this Court and other courts. See, e.g., Patterson-Romo v. United States, 2012 WL 2060872 (S.D.Cal., June 7, 2012) (Gonzalez, J.); United States v. Beltran-Palafox, 2012 WL 899262 at *2 and n.14 (D.Kan., Mar. 16, 2012); Aguilar-Marroquin v. United States, 2011 WL 1344251 (S.D.Cal., Apr. 8, 2011) (Huff, J.); Rendon-Inzunza v. United States, 2010 WL 3076271 (S.D.Cal., Aug. 6, 2010) (Burns, J.).
Even if Beltran-Zuniga had not waived collateral attack, his motion would fail on the merits. The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.