Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Flores-Rodriguez v. United States

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 1, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Civil No. 11-5422 SI


SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Petitioner Oscar Flores-Rodriguez, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi, filed this pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is DENIED.


In May 2010, petitioner was indicted on a single count charging him with illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. See Indictment. In December 2010, petitioner entered into a binding plea agreement with the government pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(c), and pleaded guilty to the single-count indictment. See Plea Agreement. Under the terms of the binding plea agreement, petitioner waived both the right to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. Id. at 2-3. Further, the parties agreed that an appropriate disposition of the case under the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), was a sentence of imprisonment at the middle of the Guidelines range for the adjusted offense level of 17, and the applicable criminal history category as determined by the court. Id. at 4. Petitioner's criminal history category was calculated in the PSR and by the court to be at level VI, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 51-63 months imprisonment. United States Opposition to Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Opposition Memo") at 2. In accordance with the binding plea agreement, the court sentenced petitioner to 57 months custody in the Bureau of Prisons, followed by three years of supervised release. Judgment at 2-3. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal, but on November 7, 2011, he filed this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Motion Under § 2255 to Vacate, Set aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ("Motion") and Brief in Support of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion ("Supporting Brief").


A prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court who wishes to attack collaterally the validity of his conviction or sentence must do so by filing a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court which imposed the sentence. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal sentencing court is authorized to grant relief if it concludes 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." See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988). If the court finds that relief is warranted under Section 2255, it must "vacate and set the judgment aside" and then do one of four things: "discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see also United States v. Barron, 172 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1999).


In his section 2255 motion, petitioner asserts that: (1) counsel was ineffective in several different ways; (2) his sentence was imposed in violation of the plea agreement; (3) he was improperly denied credit for state jail time served; and (4) counsel disregarded his request to file a notice of appeal. Motion at 5, Supporting Brief at 2-3.

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner claims that counsel was ineffective for: (I) failing to file timely objections to the PSR; (ii) failing to argue for a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range; (iii) failing to inform the court of his eligibility for prior jail credits; (iv) failing to perfect the record for appeal; and (v) failing to file a timely notice of appeal.

A. Legal Standard

In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), which requires him to show deficient performance and prejudice. Deficient performance requires a showing that trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as measured by prevailing professional norms. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003). To establish prejudice, petitioner must show a reasonable probability that "but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.

B. Analysis

In claim (I), petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to file timely objections to the PSR. Supporting Brief at 2. This contention lacks merit. Petitioner fails to identify any objections to the PSR that counsel should have made which would have affected the advisory Guidelines calculation, or any objections that he requested but counsel refused to make. Under these circumstances, counsel's failure to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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