The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Marlene Ogata pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and is currently serving a 210-month sentence. She was sentenced for her role in a large conspiracy involving 2,000 pounds of methamphetamine. She was found responsible for assisting in the distribution of 50 pounds of methamphetamine.
Ogata now seeks to vacate her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that her trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because her claims are either procedurally barred or lack merit, this court denies her motion. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Ogata was indicted on November 17, 2007. A superseding indictment, filed on July 2, 2008, charged Ogata with having conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers. First Superseding Indictment at 2, July 2, 2008, ECF No. 264 ("Indictment"). According to the indictment, the conspiracy spanned the period from 2000 to September 2005. Id. Ogata allegedly facilitated multi-pound methamphetamine transactions for profit. Id. at 5.
Ogata pled guilty in this court on July 10, 2008, with no plea agreement. See ECF No. 285. During her plea colloquy, Ogata said she understood the charge against her. See Transcript of Proceedings on July 10, 2008, at 3:14-4:3, ECF No. 592 ("Plea Transcript"). Specifically, she understood that she had been charged with having conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine from 2000 through September 2005. Id.
During the Rule 11 plea colloquy, the United States summarized the evidence that it would have presented at trial. The United States said that Ogata had received pound quantities of methamphetamine from some of her co-defendants and other individuals and had delivered the drugs to a co-defendant. Id. at 10:17-11:25. Ogata allegedly knew that the substance was methamphetamine and that she was furthering the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Hawaii. Id. Ogata said that she had not heard anything wrong in the United States' summary. Id. at 12:5-7. She also agreed that the conspiracy involved "at least 50 grams of the pure form of methamphetamine." Id. at 12:10-13:2.
On April 27, 2009, this court sentenced Ogata to 210 months in custody and five years of supervised release for her role in the conspiracy.*fn1 See ECF No. 551. The court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which stated that Ogata was responsible for having assisted in the distribution of at least 50 pounds of methamphetamine. Presentence Investigation Report at 16. At the sentencing hearing, Ogata said she had reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report and that her lawyer had stated all of her objections to that report. See Transcript of Proceedings on April 27, 2009, at 2:20-3:2, ECF No. 618 ("Sentencing Transcript"). Those objections focused on the sentencing enhancement relating to Ogata's role in the offense; there were no objections as to drug amount. See Defendant's Sentencing Statement, ECF No. 536.
Ogata appealed her sentence, arguing that she was entitled to a shorter sentence because she had played only a minor role in the conspiracy. See ECF No. 636. The Ninth Circuit stated that Ogata had played a significant role and affirmed her sentence on December 15, 2010. Id.
On March 5, 2012, Ogata moved to vacate her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the ground that her counsel's ineffectiveness had caused her to be denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. She seeks an evidentiary hearing. The court finds an evidentiary hearing unwarranted and now denies Ogata's motion.
A federal prisoner may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his or her sentence if it "was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or . . . the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A petitioner must allege specific facts that, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 1996)).
A judge may dismiss a § 2255 motion if "it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief." Rule 4(b), Section 2255 Rules. A court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the allegations are "palpably incredible or patently frivolous," or if the issues can be conclusively decided on the basis of the evidence in the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977); see also United States v. Mejia--Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a "district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on a § ...