Linares-Soberanis v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. B-12-175 |
| Parties | JOEL LINARES-SOBERANIS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
The Court is in receipt of Joel Linares-Soberanis's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (hereinafter, Linares-Soberanis's "Motion" or "§ 2255 Motion") and supporting Memorandum. Dkt. Nos. 1 and 1-1. Respondent, United States of America, has filed a Response and Amended Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter, the "Government's Response"), arguing that Linares-Soberanis's § 2255 Motion should be dismissed for lack of merit. Dkt. No. 11. For the reasons provided below, it is recommended that Linares-Soberanis's § 2255 Motion be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, it is recommended that the Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
This Court has jurisdiction over Linares-Soberanis's § 2255 Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 2255.
According to evidence introduced at Linares-Soberanis's trial, Linares-Soberanis owned a salvage yard in 2009 called Nationwide Import Auto Salvage (hereinafter "Nationwide") in Houston, Texas. See United States v. Linares-Soberanis, et al., No. l:10-cr-331-l, Dkt. No. 192-2 at 13-14.1 In October of 2009, a man named Borel Bardales-Orellana introduced Linares-Soberanis to a man named Felix Dalas-Ortega. Id. Linares-Soberanis offered to pay Dalas-Ortega $3,000 to drive a truck into Mexico, pick up some drugs, and bring them back to Nationwide. Id. at 15-16. Linares-Soberanis arranged to purchase a white 2004 Dodge pickup truck for Dalas-Ortega to drive. CR Dkt. No. 192-1 at 69-83; CR Dkt. No. 194-4 at 12. Subsequently, Linares-Soberanis, Dalas-Ortega, and Bardales-Orellana took steps to have the truck registered and insured in Dalas-Ortega's name. CR Dkt. No. 192-2 at 16-17.
On November 5, 2009, Dalas-Ortega left for Mexico in the Dodge truck, following a man named Fernando Argenis-Huezo, who Lineras-Soberanis had recruited to act as Dalas-Ortega's guide. CR Dkt. No. 192-2 at 17-26. After arriving in Mexico, Argenis-Huezo switched the driveshaft of the Dodge truck with that of another truck. Id. at 27-29. Dalas-Ortega then separated from Argenis-Huezo and drove back to the border. Id. at 30. On November 6, 2009, Dalas-Ortega was questioned by a United States Customs and Border Protection (hereinafter, "CBP") officer at the Gateway International Bridge port of entry inBrownsville, Texas. CR Dkt. No. 192-1 at 9-11. While in secondary inspection, CBP officers inspected the Dodge truck and found a substance in the truck's driveshaft. The substance tested positive for heroin. Id. at 14-19.
On March 30, 2010, a federal grand jury issued an indictment charging Linares-Soberanis and Argenis-Huezo with two counts of criminal conduct. CR Dkt. No. 33.2 Count 1 of the indictment charged Linares-Soberanis and Argenis-Huezo with conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, "more than one kilogram of heroin, that is approximately 17.8 kilograms of heroin," in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(a). Id. Count 2 of the indictment charged them with conspiracy to import this same amount of heroin into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), and 960(b)(1). Id. at 1-2. On April 27, 2010, the grand jury issued a superseding indictment, which added a notice of criminal forfeiture, but was in all other respects the same as the original indictment. CR Dkt. No. 56.
On May 6, 2010, Linares-Soberanis moved to replace his counsel, Lance Hac Nguyen, with Adrian Almaguer and Tim Gyftakos. CR Dkt. No. 65. The Court granted his motion. CR Dkt. No. 66. Later, on July 19, 2010, Linares-Soberanis moved to change counsel again, filing a motion to replace Adrian Almaguer and Tim Gyftakos with Nguyen. CR Dkt. No. 91. The Court granted the motion. CR Dkt. No. 93.
On July 20, 2010, the grand jury issued a final superseding three-count indictment against Linares-Soberanis. CR Dkt. No. 94. Count 1 of this indictment charged Linares-Soberanis with conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, more than one kilogram of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(a). Id. at 1. Count 2 of the indictment charged him with conspiracy to import this same amount of heroin into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), and 960(b)(1). Id. at 1-2. Count 3 of the indictment charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(B) and 924(a)(2). More specifically, Count 3 charged him with knowingly possessing a firearm, and "affecting interstate commerce" with "a Smith and Wesson .357 Caliber Revolver bearing an obliterated serial number, said firearm being transported or shipped in interstate commerce[,]" as an alien present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa. Id. at 3.
On October 18, 2010, Linares-Soberanis filed a motion seeking to enter a conditional plea to Count 3. CR Dkt. No. 131. The Court granted his motion. CR Dkt. No. 132. Linares-Soberanis then went to trial, and a jury found him guilty of the conduct charged in Counts 1 and 2 on October 22, 2010. CR Dkt. No. 147. At sentencing, the Court permitted Linares-Soberanis to replace Nguyen with Ralph Martinez as his counsel. See CR Minute Entry dated January 18, 2011. The Court then sentenced Linares-Soberanis to 360 months of imprisonment for Count 1, 360 months of imprisonment for Count 2, and 120 months of imprisonment for Count 3. The Court ordered Linares-Soberanis to serve his terms of imprisonmentconcurrently. CR Dkt. No. 170 at 1-2. The Court additionally imposed a $300 special assessment fee, a $25,000 fine, a five-year term of supervised release on Count 1, a five-year term of supervised release on Count 2, and a three-year term of supervised release on Count 3. The Court ordered the supervised release terms to be served concurrently upon Linares-Soberanis's release from imprisonment. Id. at 4-6.
The Court entered its judgment on February 1, 2011. CR Dkt. No. 170 at 1. Linares-Soberanis appealed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed on March 14, 2012. CR Dkt. Nos. 205, 206; see also United States v. Linares-Soberanis, 464 Fed. App'x. 334 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Linares-Soberanis did not file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 4.
Linares-Soberanis filed his instant timely § 2255 Motion through counsel on September 7, 2012. Dkt. No. 1 at 15. He claims an entitlement to § 2255 relief based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, Lance Hac Nguyen. Id. at 6. Specifically, he makes the following claims about Nguyen's assistance.
1. Nguyen "bolstered the credibility of government witnesses by imputing the existence of a conspiracy as a predetermined fact" during his jury argument and examination of witnesses. Dkt. No. 1 at 6.
2. Nguyen bolstered the testimony of government witnesses by emphasizing that the witnesses were truthful as a matter of fact. Dkt. No. 1 at 6.
3. Nguyen "open[ed] the door" and allowed the jury to consider inadmissible evidence indicating that the Government had targeted Linares-Soberanis in
another federal investigation unrelated to the investigation resulting in his trial. Dkt. No. 1 at 6. Nguyen "examined witnesses beyond the scope of direct examination and permitted witnesses to explain and expound on testimony given during direct examination that was harmful to [Linares-Soberanis]." Dkt. No. 1 at 6.
4. Nguyen failed to object when the Government bolstered the credibility of its witnesses. Dkt. No. 1 at 6.
5. Nguyen failed to object when the Government insinuated that Linares-Soberanis posed a threat to witnesses. Dkt. No. 1 at 6.
6. Nguyen failed to object to testimony regarding the recovery of a gun at Linares-Soberanis's residence that had an obliterated serial number. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8.
The Government filed its Response on February 11, 2014. Dkt. No. 11. In its Response, the Government argues that Linares-Soberanis's § 2255 Motion should be dismissed because it lacks merit. Dkt. No. 11 at 29, 49. Linares-Soberanis has not responded to the Government's Response, despite being notified of his right to file a reply. See Dkt. No. 10 at 2.
A. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a defendant may move to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence if (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) the district courtwas without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The nature of a § 2255 collateral challenge is extremely limited, being reserved for instances of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude. United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991). If an error is not of constitutional magnitude, the movant must show that the error could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice. United States v. Smith, 32 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1994).
B. The Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel. The "Sixth Amendment guarantees a[ll] defendant[s] the right to have counsel present at all 'critical' stages of the criminal proceedings" instituted against them. Missouri v. Frye, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1405 (2012) (citing Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 786 (2009)). Critical stages include not only trial, but also pretrial proceedings — including the plea-bargaining process. Laffler v. Cooper, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012); Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 373 (2010); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985). Even though sentencing does not concern the defendant's guilt or innocence, ineffective assistance...
To continue reading
Request your trial