UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 15, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RENE LUIS RIEBELING,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Defendant Rene Luis Riebeling pleaded guilty to one count of attempted re-entry after deportation. Pursuant to his plea agreement (Docket no. 19), Riebeling waived appeal or collateral attack unless the Court imposed a custodial sentence higher than the guideline range the government had agreed to recommend. The government kept its bargain (compare Docket no. 19 (plea agreement) and Docket no. 24 (government's sentencing summary chart)), and the Court sentenced Riebeling below the resulting guideline range. Riebeling therefore waived appeal or collateral attack.
Ignoring this, Riebeling filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion consists of boilerplate that is apparently circulating among federal prisoners. It argues, in essence, that because Riebeling is a non-citizen, he is suffering greater hardship than a U.S. citizen would. These arguments have repeatedly and consistently been rejected as meritless by this 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.).
Riebeling's arguments that he is unjustly being treated differently than similarly-sitated U.S. citizens are doubly frivolous here, because the crime he committed-attempted re-entry following deportation-can only be committed by non-citizens.
Even if Riebeling had not waived collateral attack, the motion would be denied on the merits as baseless. The motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.