Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 18CR2185-JLS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 11 DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER 28 v. U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET 12 ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE 13 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF ARNOLD RAY WALTERS, III, APPEALABILITY 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Walters’ Amended Motion under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 19 114). Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 116) 20 and Defendant has submitted a reply (ECF No. 117). Having considered these submissions 21 and the applicable authorities, the Court will dismiss Defendant’s motion for lack of 22 jurisdiction. 23 Background 24 On July 13, 2018, Defendant Walters pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to the 25 offense of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). ECF No. 26 23, 24. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to waive all rights to 27 appeal and collaterally attack “every aspect” of the conviction and sentence, with an 28 1 exception preserving collateral attack “on the basis that Defendant received ineffective 2 assistance of counsel.” ECF No. 23 at 10. 3 Defendant was sentenced by this Court on June 3, 2022, to a term of imprisonment 4 of 120 months, 3 years of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $13,218.97.1 5 ECF No. 98. On June 5, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit of 6 Appeals. ECF No. 103. Defendant’s notice of appeal was subsequently construed as a 7 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the previously mentioned briefing was submitted 8 to this Court. ECF No. 111. 9 Analysis 10 Defendant contends that his conviction should be vacated because his conviction and 11 sentence are illegal and unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. 12 Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ECF No. 114 at 1. Defendant further contends that his plea 13 agreement waiver of collateral attack may not be enforced if his conviction is illegal.2 ECF 14 No. 117 at 2. The government maintains that Defendant waived his right to bring his 15 Section 2255 motion, that Defendant cannot demonstrate that his conviction was in 16 violation of the United States Constitution, and that Defendant’s claims are procedurally 17 defaulted. The Court agrees that Defendant’s motion is waived, therefore the Court lacks 18 jurisdiction to consider the motion. 19 A knowing and voluntary waiver of a statutory right is enforceable. United States 20 v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1990). The right to collaterally attack a 21 22 23 1 This sentence was to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in 19CR4406-JLS, a case in which Defendant received a sentence of a sentence of 300 months of incarceration for the offense of distribution 24 of fentanyl resulting in death in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). 19CR4406-JLS, ECF No. 66. A 25 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was also filed in that case but was subsequently withdrawn. Id., ECF Nos. 77, 80. 26 2 In his notice of appeal, Defendant also raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. ECF No. 103. However, this claim was not raised in the amended Section 2255 motion filed by counsel after this 27 Court’s briefing schedule was issued, thus the Court does not consider the IAC claim to be before the Court. If it were, the initial claim was unsupported by any specific allegation or information sufficient to 28 1 sentence under § 2255 is statutory in nature, and a defendant may therefore waive the right 2 to file a § 2255 petition. United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994); United 3 States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 In this case, the record reflects that Defendant’s plea agreement was knowingly and 5 voluntarily entered. In his plea agreement, Defendant represented that his guilty plea was 6 knowing and voluntary, that he had a full opportunity to discuss all the facts and 7 circumstances of his case with counsel, and that he “has a clear understanding of the 8 charges and the consequences of this plea.” ECF No. 23 at 5. Defendant was represented 9 by counsel at the change of plea proceeding, where Defendant acknowledged that he had 10 taken an oath to tell the truth. ECF No. 110 at 3. During this proceeding, Defendant 11 acknowledged that he reviewed the plea agreement with counsel, that he initialed each page 12 and signed it, and that he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Id. at 4-6. Defendant 13 indicated that he was satisfied with the representation and advice provided by his attorney 14 and stated that he understood that if the Court followed the plea agreement, he would not 15 be able to appeal the sentence or later collaterally attack the sentence or judgment. Id. at 16 7, 12. 17 Defendant does not contest the voluntariness of the plea agreement waiver provision 18 but contends that his waiver should not be enforced because his conviction is illegal under 19 Bruen, supra. However, since the filing of the briefing in this case,3 the Ninth Circuit Court 20 of Appeals has determined that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional, even as applied to 21 non-violent felons. United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), cert. 22 denied, 2026 WL 135692 (Jan. 20, 2026). Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for 23 Defendant to escape the waiver provision of his plea agreement. 24 25 26 27 3 Briefing in this matter was completed in February 2024. Defendant requested, however, that the Court defer a decision on the merits pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the issue of Bruen’s impact on the 28 I Conclusion 2 The Court finds that the Section 2255 motion and the record conclusively 3 ||demonstrate that Defendant is entitled to no relief because the motion was waived as a 4 result of Defendant’s plea agreement. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody is Hereby 6 ||Dismissed. Additionally, the Court Denies Defendant a certificate of appealability, as 7 Defendant has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional 8 || right. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: March 26, 2026 . tt f Le 11 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28