1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 19cr2175; 22cv579-CAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 14 JAMES ALLEN WILLIAMS, U.S.C. SECTION 2255 [Doc. No. 34] 15 Defendant. 16 17 On April 25, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion under

to vacate, set 18 aside, or correct a sentence. [Doc. No. 34.] On May 25, 2022, Respondent filed an 19 opposition. [Doc. No. 37.] On June 9, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply. [Doc. No. 38.]1 20 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On June 11, 2019, James Allen Williams (hereafter Defendant or Williams) was 23 arraigned on a one-count Indictment charging him with Possession with Intent to 24 Distribute Methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1). See Doc. Nos. 1, 6. 25 The charge, as alleged, carried a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence. Defendant pled 26 not guilty. Doc. No. 6. 27 28 1 On September 12, 2019, Defendant waived his right to indictment and pled guilty 2 to a one count Superseding Information charging him with Possession with Intent to 3 Distribute Methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1), which did not charge 4 a mandatory minimum sentence, pursuant to a plea agreement reached between the 5 parties. See Doc. Nos. 17 - 21. Among other provisions, Williams agreed to an appellate 6 waiver. Doc. No. 18. 7 On December 23, 2019, Williams was sentenced. The Court, pursuant to the 8 parties’ agreement, calculated Defendant’s Sentencing Guideline Range to be 130 to 162 9 months. Doc. No. 33 at 3. The government recommended a sentence of 100 months and 10 probation recommended a sentence of 108 months. Counsel for defendant countered with 11 a 60- month sentencing recommendation, arguing it was warranted based on Defendant’s 12 age, drug addictions, lack of support, and his willingness to submit to drug rehabilitation 13 programs and investment in his future as a good parent and citizen.

. During the 14 proceeding, the Court noted that Defendant had “no [federal] custodial credits,” and that 15 his “State custodial credits are not the same charges as here.” Doc. No. 33 at 8. 16 Ultimately, the Court considered the nature and circumstances of Defendant’s 17 offense, his history and characteristics, and the “need to deter criminal conduct and 18 protect the public from further crimes by” Williams. Doc. No. 33 at 10. The Court also 19 considered the smaller quantity of drugs possessed for distribution but also the fact that 20 Defendant was the “last end of the chain” and the harm his direct distribution of 21 methamphetamine had on people.

. The court determined that a sentencing of “48 22 months to run consecutive to [Williams’s] State court sentence” was appropriate, noting 23 that Williams has “no custodial credits at this time.”

. In sentencing Defendant, 24 the court noted that “presumably, [Williams will] finish [] state custody in 2021, and then 25 [] go into federal custody on this offense for four years.” Doc. No. 33 at 11. The Court 26 also confirmed that Defendant had waived his right to appeal in response to the Court’s 27 sentence. Doc. No. 33 at 13. 28 1 On March 30, 2020, Williams’s fiancé through email requested certain documents 2 of Defendant’s counsel. According to Defendant, the request was not completed until 3 December 18, 2020. 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 Defendant's motion to vacate his sentence arises under

, which 6 provides: 7 A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was 8 imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that 9 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 10 subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence 11 to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

12

(a). Thus, “[u]nder

, a federal court may vacate, set 13 aside, or correct a federal prisoner’s sentence if the sentence was imposed in violation of 14 the Constitution or laws of the United States.” United States v. Withers,

, 15 1062 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 Defendant argues three grounds for his motion under

. Doc. No. 34 17 at 4. The first titled, “Denied Release in April 2021 NVSS hearing through no fault of my 18 own,” alleges that the court was “misinformed about my discharge date,” and that 19 Defendant’s release denial resulted from COVID-19. Doc. No. 34. Defendant asks for a 20 12-month reduction of his Federal custodial time from 48 to 36 months, because the Court 21 believed that Williams would start his federal sentence in April of 2021.

22 Defendant’s Ground Two titled, “Ineffective assistance of counsel,” alleges that his 23 previous defense counsel failed to correct misstatements about Williams’s state sentence, 24 and defense counsel did not respond to emails causing Williams to not timely submit his 25 motion, putting Williams at an “extreme disadvantage.” Doc. No. 34 at 5. 26 Defendant’s Ground Three titled, “Incorrect information pertaining to state release 27 date which directly affected my sentencing,” asserts that the Court’s intent was for 28 1 Williams to serve only a “very specific amount of time,” based on the Court’s belief he 2 would be discharged in April of 2021. Doc. No. 34 at 7. 3 DISCUSSION 4 1. Untimely Petition 5 Title

(f) grants defendants one year to file an ineffective 6 assistance of counsel motion with some exceptions. Defendant’s motion was filed more 7 than one year after the January 6, 2021, deadline to file. Defendant claims he requested 8 documents from his counsel and did not receive them until December 18, 2020. 9 However, even if the statute of limitations is tolled during that time, Defendant did not 10 file the motion until 16 months after receiving the requested documents. Therefore, the 11 motion is untimely. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the court will consider the 12 merits of the motion. 13 2. Waiver of Claims 14 Defendant’s claim that the Court misunderstood his State custody time, and only 15 intended for his time in federal custody to extend to a certain year, has been waived. The 16 Court sentenced Defendant to 48 months of federal custody, far below the 17 recommendations of both the government and his probation officer. Doc. No. 24 at 18. 18 Since Defendant waived his right to appeal and collaterally attack the conviction and 19 sentence in his plea agreement, he has waived all claims except for claims of ineffective 20 assistance of counsel. 21 3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 22 To prevail on a claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require 23 reversal of a conviction, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient 24 and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466

, 687 (1984). The proper standard for evaluating attorney performance is 26 whether the assistance was reasonably effective under the circumstances.

. 27 Judicial scrutiny of defense counsel's performance must be “highly deferential,” and a 28 court “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide 1 range of reasonable professional assistance....”

. Prejudice is shown when “there 2 is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the 3 proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient 4 to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

. 5 In grounds one and three of Williams’s motion under

, Williams 6 asserts that the Court was misinformed about his state custody discharge date and that 7 defense counsel did not notice the discrepancy between Williams’s remaining state 8 custodial time and the proposed federal custodial time. Doc. No. 34. Williams then 9 argues that defense counsel’s oversight resulted in Williams serving 48 months in federal 10 custody, when the purported intent of the Court was for the defendant to only serve 36 11 months.

Per Strickland, Williams must affirmatively prove by a reasonable degree of 12 probability (1) that defense counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of 13 reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for his errors, the result 14 of the proceeding would have been different.

(1984). 15 Here, Williams has failed to prove either of the prongs. Williams was facing a 16 guideline range of custodial time ranging from 130 to 162 months, but through defense 17 counsel’s advocacy was sentenced to a 48-month sentence. The Court was fully aware 18 that Defendant was serving a state sentence, had no federal custody credits, and would 19 “go into federal custody on this offense for four years.” Doc. No. 33 at 11. Williams’s 20 reduced sentence reflects both Defense Counsel’s reasonably effective counsel and 21 advocacy, and the Court’s clear intention for Williams to serve 48 months “consecutive 22 to” Williams’s State offense.”

Considering the strong presumption in favor of defense 23 counsel’s performance, Strickland,

(1984), with the evidence of a favorable 24 ruling for Williams, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that defense counsel’s 25 representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 26 Similarly, Williams has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced. He claims the 27 Court’s belief was that in April 2021 Williams would begin his federal sentence; 28 however, the transcript of his sentencing hearing definitively proves that is not the case. 1 || To the contrary, the Court clearly stated on the record that Defendant should be sentenced 2 ||to 48 months for his federal crime based of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and that it 3 ||should be consecutive to his state custody. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, the motion is DENIED. 6 Dated: June 17, 2022 ©; Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28