From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez-Carillo v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 4, 2012
CASE NO. 10cr4724/11cv2655-LAB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 10cr4724/11cv2655-LAB

10-04-2012

RAMON RAMIREZ-CARILLO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255

HABEAS MOTION

After pleading guilty to one count of attempted reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, Ramon Ramirez-Carillo filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. He argues that, as an illegal alien, he is being treated differently than citizens would be, and that this violates his equal protection rights. Specifically, he argues that as a deportable alien, he is ineligible to be housed in a halfway house.

Ramirez-Carillo waived appeal and collateral attack when he pleaded guilty. (See Docket no. 17 (Plea Agreement) at 11:10-12:2.) The only exceptions were an appeal or collateral attack based on ineffective assistance of counsel, or an appeal of a sentence higher than the guideline range recommended pursuant to the plea agreement. In fact, Ramirez-Carillo was sentenced to 30 months, plus three years' supervised release—eleven months below the custodial sentence recommended pursuant to the plea agreement. (See id. at 8:20-9:26 (Plea Agreement's provisions regarding sentencing); Docket no. 21 (government's sentencing summary chart, including the agreed-on guidelines and recommending a sentence of 41 months); Docket no. 25 (Judgment, sentencing Ramirez-Carillo to 30 months plus 3 years' supervised release).)

Even if Ramirez-Carillo had not waived collateral attack, his motion would be denied as meritless. First, are no similarly-situated U.S. citizens who are being punished less severely for the crime to which Ramirez-Carillo pleaded guilty; by definition, this crime can only be committed by noncitizens. Second, the argument that he is entitled to a lower sentence because he is a deportable alien has been repeatedly rejected by this and other courts as meritless. See, e.g., Patterson-Romo v. United States, 2012 WL 2060872 (S.D.Cal., June 7, 2012) (Gonzalez, J.); United States v. Beltran-Palafox, 2012 WL 899262 at *2 and n.14 (D.Kan., Mar. 16, 2012); Aguilar-Marroquin v. United States, 2011 WL 1344251 (S.D.Cal., Apr. 8, 2011) (Huff, J.); Rendon-Inzunza v. United States, 2010 WL 3076271 (S.D.Cal., Aug. 6, 2010) (Burns, J.).

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ramirez-Carillo v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 4, 2012
CASE NO. 10cr4724/11cv2655-LAB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Ramirez-Carillo v. United States

Case Details

Full title:RAMON RAMIREZ-CARILLO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 4, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 10cr4724/11cv2655-LAB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012)