United States v. Alvarez-Lopez, 1:05-cr-00477

Movant Jose Luis Pimental filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence in the Northern District of Georgia.
Pimental pled guilty on June 26, 2007, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, with substantial drug quantities alleged.
Pimental’s plea agreement included a broad waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence, with narrow exceptions for upward departures or government appeals.
At the plea colloquy and in writing, the court and the parties explained and acknowledged the appeal/§ 2255 waiver and Pimental’s maximum penalties could include life imprisonment.
Pimental was sentenced on September 19, 2008 to 108 months’ imprisonment, five years’ supervised release, and a $100 special assessment; the offense level and guidelines range were based on 8 pounds plus 294 grams of methamphetamine.
Pimental’s direct appeal was dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit due to the valid waiver; he filed the instant § 2255 motion on November 13, 2009.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver bar to §2255 claims	Pimental argues waiver does not bar his §2255 claims about trial counsel.	Government contends the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily binding and bars these claims.	Waiver precludes §2255 claims challenging sentencing
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Powell failed to object to evidence and to the 8-pound attribution for sentencing.	Waiver and record show no ineffective assistance affecting the waiver or plea.	Waiver bars relief; no prejudice shown sufficient under Strickland
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Appellate counsel failed to raise involuntariness and evidentiary issues and the 8-pound attribution.	Issues were either waived or lack merit; appellate counsel not ineffective.	Waiver bars relief; claims lacking merit
Reasonableness of sentence	Sentence unreasonable because based on 294 grams only.	Waiver and record show valid considerations; no basis to appeal.	Precluded by valid sentence-appeal waiver
Validity of the guilty plea	Pimental claims the plea may have been involuntary.	Record supports voluntariness and understanding of penalties.	Plea valid; waiver unaffected

Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (collateral attack standard; standard for relief)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (high hurdle for collateral relief)
Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1939) (exceptional circumstances standard for habeas relief)
United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (valid waiver of appeal generally bars collateral attacks)
Bushert v. Smith, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (knowing understanding of waiver significance required)
Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims survive waiver only if affecting the waiver or plea)
United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2002) (plea-related ineffective-assistance standard relevance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective assistance standard applies to guilty pleas)