IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA
April 11, 2013
UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF,
ERIKA MEZA-PENA DEFENDANT.
This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF 18.) In her motion and supplemental filing, defendant moves this court to reduce her thirty-four month sentence. The court finds a reduction is not warranted.
Under subsection 2255(b), the court is not required to cause service of a 2255 motion upon the United States attorney or to hold a hearing if the "motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." Defendant's only legal argument is a cursory mention of the Supreme Court case Brown v. Plata, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1947 (2011), in which the Court upheld the lower court's injunction ordering the State of California to reduce its prison population to comport with the Eighth Amendment. Defendant does not explain how Plata is applicable here, given that she is in a federal facility, and the court finds Plata does not entitle defendant to relief. Defendant further implores the court to reduce her sentence so she can, among other things, return to her family and begin the process of returning legally to the United States. Defendant's arguments and the record of this case demonstrate conclusively that she is not entitled to relief. In defendant's plea agreement, the parties recommended this court sentence defendant to a thirty month term for her violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, deported alien found in the United States. (ECF 16 at 5-- 6.) The guidelines sentencing range was between thirty and thirty-seven months. The court imposed the recommended thirty month sentence to run consecutively with defendant's four-month sentence in a related case for violating probation. (ECF 15.) Upon review, all guidelines calculations are correct. Moreover, defendant in her plea agreement waived the right to file a motion under § 2255, and her motion does not argue that her waiver was uninformed or involuntary. (ECFs 16, 18, 20.) Accordingly, the court finds no legal basis for granting a reduction. The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.