Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 21-cr-01572-BAS 13 Case No. 26-cv-03666-BAS Plaintiff, 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 15 v. VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 16 STEPHEN WILLIAMS, CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 80) 17 Defendant.

18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Stephen Williams drove through the Trusted Traveler SENTRI 22 Lane from Mexico into the United States with 23.42 kilograms of methamphetamine 23 in his gas tank. (Presentence Report (“PSR”) ¶¶ 4–14, ECF No. 48.) Post-arrest, he 24 admitted that he had been recruited by a friend to transport drugs in exchange for 25 $6,000. (Id. ¶ 9.) 26 Mr. Williams pled guilty to importing methamphetamine. (Plea Agreement, 27 ECF No. 42; see also ECF No. 43.) As part of his Plea Agreement, he waived his right 1 than 110 months in custody. (Plea Agreement § XI.) 2 Mr. Williams has a lengthy criminal record, including assault with a firearm 3 with gang allegations (pled down from the originally charged attempted murder), 4 second-degree robbery with a handgun, and vehicle theft. (PSR ¶¶ 40–49.) He was 5 in criminal history category V. (Id. ¶ 51.) Mr. Williams had tattoos reflecting gang 6 ties, as well as a portrait of drug kingpin El Chapo Guzmán. (Id. ¶¶ 70–71.) 7 The Court calculated Mr. Williams’s offense level to be 23, finding that Mr. 8 Williams was entitled to downward deductions for “minor” role, but not for 9 “minimal” role, in the offense under United States Sentencing Guidelines 10 (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3B1.2. (Sentencing Tr. 8:15–9:4, ECF No. 75.) With a criminal 11 history category of V, Mr. Williams’s guideline range was 84–105 months. (Id.) 12 At sentencing, the Court noted, “I understand that you’re saying all the gang 13 activity and serious criminality is in the past . . . [but] you’re still having some 14 problems.” (Id. 9:5–13.) The Court noted that Mr. Williams was importing a very 15 large amount of methamphetamine and smoked marijuana on pretrial release then 16 fled. (Id.) The Court found these circumstances to be aggravating. (Id.) Thus, on 17 October 21, 2022, the Court sentenced Mr. Williams to 84 months in custody. (ECF 18 No. 70.) Fourteen days later, after the time for appeal had expired, the judgment 19 became final. See United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001) 20 (noting judgment becomes final when time for appeal expires); Fed. R. App. P. 4 21 (providing the notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days of entry of judgment). 22 Three years later, on November 1, 2025, Amendment 833 to the U.S.S.G. went 23 into effect. This amendment expanded the circumstances under which a defendant is 24 entitled to minimal and minor role in drug offenses. Specifically, the new guideline 25 noted that a minimal role adjustment “is generally warranted if the defendant’s 26 primary function in the offense was plainly among the lowest level of drug trafficking 27 functions, such as serving as a courier, running errands, sending or receiving phone 1 adjustment, which Mr. Williams received at the time of sentencing, “is generally 2 warranted if the defendant’s primary function in the offense was performing another 3 low-level trafficking function, such as distributing controlled substances in user-level 4 quantities for little or no monetary compensation or with a primary motivation other 5 than profit . . . .” The new guideline section noted that “the extent of the adjustment 6 shall be based on the totality of the circumstances and involves a determination that 7 is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case.” Id. This amendment was 8 not made retroactive. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). 9 Nonetheless, Defendant brings this Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 10 His Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he should not just have received 11 a minor role adjustment but should now also receive a minimal role adjustment under 12 the new amendment. This change would decrease his original base offense level from 13 23 to 17. Mr. Williams’s new guideline range would be 46–57 months. 14 II. ANALYSIS 15 A. Timeliness 16 The Government argues the Motion is untimely, and it was certainly brought 17 more than one year after Mr. Williams’s sentence became final. See 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2255(f) (imposing a one-year limitation on a motion brought under this section). 19 However, there is an argument that Mr. Williams did not and could not have 20 discovered the fact of the new guideline range until the guideline amendment was 21 passed in November 2025. Therefore, the Court proceeds to address the argument on 22 its merits. 23 B. Waiver of Appeal and Collateral Attack 24 Mr. Williams clearly waived his right to appeal and collaterally attack his 25 sentence so long as the Court did not sentence him to more than 110 months in 26 custody. (Plea Agreement § XI.) Mr. Williams does not claim this waiver was 27 unknowing or involuntary. Thus, this waiver is enforceable. United States v. 1 violation for a defendant to waive, in an otherwise valid plea agreement, the statutory 2 right of appeal.”); United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993) 3 (holding a knowing and voluntary waiver of collateral attack is enforceable). Since 4 Mr. Williams does not claim his Plea Agreement was invalid or that his waiver of 5 appeal and collateral attack was not knowing or voluntary, the Court may deny the 6 Motion on this ground alone. 7 C. Recalculation of Nonretroactive Sentencing Guidelines 8 “The range of claims which may be raised in a § 2255 motion is narrow.” 9 United States v. Wilcox, 640 F.2d 971, 972 (9th Cir. 1981). “There is no basis for 10 collateral relief under § 2255 unless the claimed error constituted a fundamental 11 defect which inherently results in a ‘complete miscarriage of justice.’” Id. at 973 12 (quoting United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979)); see also United 13 States v. Dean, 169 F. Supp. 3d 1097, 1113 (D. Or. 2016) (noting nonconstitutional 14 sentencing errors are not cognizable on collateral review (citing United States v. 15 Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 1994))). 16 In United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit 17 noted that a motion under § 2255 is not appropriate to request recalculation of 18 sentencing guidelines because of a nonretroactive sentencing guideline amendment 19 passed well after a defendant is sentenced. A motion under § 2255 “may only be used 20 to collaterally attack a conviction and sentence upon the ground that the sentence was 21 imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. at 1038. It 22 may not be used in place of an appeal or to raise claims based on new evidence. Id. 23 It requires “an independent constitutional violation.” Id. 24 Like the defendant in Berry, Mr. Williams is simply requesting recalculation 25 of his sentencing guidelines because of a nonretroactive sentencing guideline 26 amendment passed three years after he was sentenced. Putting aside whether Mr. 27 Williams would even be entitled to a minimal role adjustment as someone whose 1 does not claim a constitutional violation, nor is there a claimed error that resulted in 2 ||a complete miscarriage of justice, the Court finds the claim is not cognizable under 3 § 2255. 4 D. Certificate of Appealability 5 If the court denies a § 2255 motion, it may issue a certificate of appealability 6 ||if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 7 || petitioner’s| constitutional claims or. . . jurists could conclude the issues presented 8 ||are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 9 11537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Solid Ninth Circuit precedent supports this Court’s 10 |/conclusion both that a waiver of collateral attack is enforceable and that recalculation 11 ||of a sentencing guidelines range based on a nonretroactive guideline amendment is 12 |}unwarranted under § 2255. Therefore, the Court DENIES a certificate of 13 appealability. 14 ||. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Motion to Vacate, Set 16 || Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 80) and DENIES a 17 certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court shall close the civil companion case, 18 ||Case No. 26-cv-03666-BAS. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || DATED: September 15, 2026 (yatta Bahar □□ Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28