Valencia

Valencia v. United States

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 19, 20243:24-cv-01071California481 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

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),…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.