Regalado-Arita v. United States of America Do not docket in this case. File only in 6:21cr69-10.
6:24-cv-00036
S.D. Tex.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Roel Antonio Regalado-Arita, a Honduran national, was repeatedly deported from the U.S. after several felony convictions and ultimately involved in a large-scale human smuggling operation.
- He was charged and pled guilty to conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens and illegal reentry, with a written plea agreement waiving most appeal rights except claims for ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC).
- His sentence was enhanced based on his role (manager), extent of involvement (over 1,000 aliens), use of firearms, and involving unaccompanied minors; after adjustments, he was sentenced to 110 months—below guidelines due to his appellate waiver.
- Regalado-Arita filed a timely motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his sentence and his counsel’s effectiveness on several grounds.
- The court conducted an evidentiary hearing and received briefing on the IAC claims, then denied relief and a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Regalado-Arita) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to file notice of appeal | Counsel refused to file an appeal as directed | Counsel was not directed to appeal; claim untimely | No evidence counsel refused; any failure-to-consult claim is untimely |
| Fraud on the court / unwanted plea | Counsel colluded with government to force plea | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no factual support | No factual basis; court rejected conclusory allegations |
| Failure to challenge PSR | Counsel did not object to PSR enhancements | Counsel filed written objections and argued at sentencing | Counsel’s performance not deficient; claim denied |
| Failure to correct sentencing errors | Counsel failed to correct errors in sentence/judgment | No specific errors alleged or facts given | No specific errors or legal support; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Placente, 81 F.3d 555 (5th Cir. 1996) (describes four cognizable grounds for § 2255 relief)
- United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1992) (defines standard for relief under § 2255)
- United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2001) (sets standard for IAC claim under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong IAC test)
- Roe v. Flores–Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (duty to file notice of appeal when directed)
- United States v. Tapp, 491 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2007) (failure to file appeal when requested is IAC)
- United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (collateral challenges don't substitute for appeals)
- United States v. Jones, 287 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard for issuing certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard)