Valencia v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by a federal prisoner to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that the jurisdictional basis for his Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act conviction was unconstitutional. The court denied the motion, finding it procedurally barred by a valid plea agreement waiver and the statute of limitations, and substantively meritless because the jurisdictional basis cited by the defendant was incorrect and the constitutional challenge had been foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 denied“For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the law. It identified that the defendant's motion was barred by the clear and unambiguous waiver in the plea agreement and the one-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). On the merits, the court correctly noted that the defendant's constitutional challenge targeted the wrong statutory subsection (70502(d)(1)(C)) when jurisdiction was actually based on 70502(d)(1)(B) and (D). Furthermore, the court correctly cited United States v. Marin as binding precedent that forecloses the specific constitutional argument raised. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the procedural bars (waiver and time-bar) and the merits failure (incorrect statutory basis and binding precedent). The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the arguments raised in the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 21cr3608-CAB; 24cv1071- CAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 13 HARRY SEGUNDO SEGURA SECTION 2255 VALENCIA, 14 [DOC. NOS. 135, 137] Defendant. 15 16 On May 4, 2023, Defendant Harry Segundo Segura Valencia was convicted of 17 possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on board a vessel and aiding and abetting 18 pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §70503 (also known as the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act or 19 “MDLEA”) and was sentenced to 96 months in custody. [Doc. No. 112.] On June 18, 20 2024, Defendant filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. 21 [Doc. No. 135.] On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff United States of America filed a response. 22 [Doc. No. 139.] For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Defendant's motion to vacate his sentence arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which 25 provides: 26 A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress 27 claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was 28 imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that 1 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 2 subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence 3 to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
4 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Thus, “[u]nder 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal court may vacate, set 5 aside, or correct a federal prisoner's sentence if the sentence was imposed in violation of 6 the Constitution or laws of the United States.” United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 7 1062 (9th Cir. 2011). 8 DISCUSSION 9 Before addressing the merits, Defendant’s motion fails for several procedural 10 reasons. First, Defendant expressly waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction 11 and sentence under Section 2255. On page 12 of his plea agreement, Defendant agreed 12 that he waived all rights to appeal and to collaterally attack every aspect of the conviction 13 and sentence. [Doc. No. 60.] The only exception is for ineffective assistant of counsel, 14 which does not apply. The plea agreement is clear and ambiguous and therefore will be 15 enforced. United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)(Courts “will 16 generally enforce the plain language of a plea agreement if it is clear and unambiguous 17 on its face.”) In addition, Defendant’s motion is time-barred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 18 §2255(f)(1) because it was filed more than one year after Defendant’s judgment of 19 conviction became final. Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987). 20 In addition to the procedural barriers, Defendant’s motion also fails on the merits. 21 Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced in the interests of justice because 22 Section 70502(d)(1)(C), which Defendant claims was the basis for jurisdiction in this 23 case, is unconstitutional because it exceeds the bounds of international law. However, 24 that argument fails for several reasons. First, the basis for jurisdiction in this case was 25 not Section 70502(d)(1)(C), as Defendant argues. Rather, jurisdiction was based on 26 Section 70502(d)(1)(B) and (D). Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), a vessel is deemed 27 without nationality (and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), if a 28 1 || claim of nationality is made and the claimed county “does not affirmatively and 2 || unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality.” But in this case no claim of 3 ||nationality was ever made for the vessel by anyone on the vessel. Because no claim was 4 made, the United States properly exercised jurisdiction over Defendant’s vessel as a 5 || vessel without nationality under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B) and (D)—not Section 6 || 70502(d)(1)(C), which is the section Defendant claims is unconstitutional. 7 Moreover, even if jurisdiction had been predicated on Section 70502(d)(1)(C), 8 || Defendant’s arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of that section have been legally 9 ||foreclosed by United States v. Marin, 90 F.4th 1235 (9th Cir. 2024), which, in a 10 || precedential opinion issued earlier this year, rejected the identical constitutional challenges 11 ||Defendant advances in this motion. Thus, even if this case were predicated on Section 12 70502(d)(1)(C), Marin is dispositive. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence is 15 || DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: August 19, 2024 (GR 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- United States v. Luis Marin 22-50154 · 2024-01-17