Lujano-Avalos v. United States Of America

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 32 Filed 04/09/26in TXSD Pagelof4
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Apnil 09, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
CARLOS LUJANO-AVALOS §
“Petitioner,” §
§
V. §
§ Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
“Respondent.” §
§
ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Habeas Corpus — 2255 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel”
(Dkt. No. 1) (“§ 2255 Motion”); “United States’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant-
Movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion” (Dkt. No. 20) (“Response”); the Magistrate Judge’s “Report
and Recommendation to Deny Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion” (Dkt. No. 24) (“R&R”); and
“Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 31)
(“Objections”).

The Magistrate Judge recommended this Court 1) dismiss the § 2255 Motion with
prejudice; 2) decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability; and 3) direct the Clerk of Court to
close this case. Dkt. No. 24 at 10. On March 16, 2026, after requesting leave from this Court,
Petitioner filed his objections to the R&R. See Dkt. No. 31. When a party objects to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the Court reviews the matter de novo. United States v. Wilson,
864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After such review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No.
24).

I. BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2023, Petitioner fled the Boca Chica Immigration and Naturalization Service
Checkpoint. CR Dkt. No. 73 at 50. Later, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of Evading
Immigration Checkpoint in a Vehicle at High Speed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 758 (“Count 1’),
one count of Transporting a Specified Illegal Alien within the United States for Commercial
Advantage and Private Financial Gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i)
(“Count 3”), and one count of being an Alien Unlawfully Found in the United States After

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

1

Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 32 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1) (“Count 4”). CR Dkt. No. 54 at 1.
Ultimately, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 60 months’ incarceration on Count 1 and 77 months
on Counts 3 and 4, to be served concurrently. CR Dkt. No. 56.

Now seeking habeas relief, Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel
during his sentencing. See Dkt. No. 1. He argues that his counsel failed: (1) to challenge what he
views as an erroneous application of the grouping rules which grouped Counts 1 and 3, but omitted
Count 4, Dkt. Nos. 1, 22, and (2) to object to the three-point criminal enhancement assessed against
him on account of a 1992 conviction that Petitioner maintains is barred by a 15-year limit. Dkt.
No. 1 at 22. The R&R found that Petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on

both grounds. This Court agrees.

Il. DISCUSSION

Petitioner first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that grouping Counts 1, 3 and 4 is
improper “because Count 4 did not involve the same act or transaction as Counts 1 and 3.” Dkt.
No. 24 at 6. He argues that, during his re-arraignment, he “admitted to entering the United States
from Mexico via ‘the river’ on April 7, 2023” such that Count 4 arises from the same transaction
as Counts 1 and 3. Dkt. No. 31 at 6. This is not so; the re-arraignment transcript Petitioner cites in
support belies his characterization as misleading. See CR Dkt. No. 73 at 54-55. While Petitioner
did admit to reentering the United States “through the river[,]” id. at 55, there is no evidence that
Petitioner effected reentry while transporting the alien on April 7, 2023. Neither the Court’s
question!, nor Petitioner’s answer support Petitioner’s characterization that he admitted to reentry
on April 7, 2023. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no error. Objection One is
OVERRULED.

Petitioner next objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “the sentencing guidelines do
not provide an avenue for grouping together all Lujano’s counts.” Dkt. No. 24 at 6. Petitioner
argues that U.S.S.G. §3D1.2(b) provides such an avenue “because all of Petitioner’s offenses
involve substantially the same harm to society and are part of acommon scheme or plan to smuggle
aliens into the United States.” Dkt. No. 31 at 8. This objection relies on Petitioner’s argument that

Count 4 involved the same act or transaction as Counts 1 and 3. As explained above, it did not.

' THE COURT: “Now, since you were back in the US on April 7, 2023, the date of the incident, how did you reenter
the United States, sir?” Dit. No. 73 at 54.

Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 32 Filed 04/09/26in TXSD Page 3of4

Because there is no evidence that Petitioner’s illegal reentry arose out of the same transaction as
Counts 1 and 3, the Court finds no error. Objection Two is OVERRULED.

Petitioner third objection relies on a finding that the Magistrate erred with Objections One
and Two. As the Court found no error there, Objection Three is OVERRULED.

In his fourth objection, Petitioner argues he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his §
2255 Motion. Dkt. No. 31 at 11. “A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255
motion only if he presents independent indicia of the likely merit of his allegations.” United States
v. Reed, 719 F.3d 369, 373 (Sth Cir. 2013). Petitioner claims he has met this burden on account of
his argument that he “was entitled to grouping pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a) or (b).” Dkt. No.
31 at 11. But Petitioner does not point to any evidence beyond what the Court has already rejected
in support of his request for this hearing. Nor can the Court locate any evidence in the record
supporting Petitioner’s claim that his attorney performed deficiently on the issue of grouping.
Accordingly, Objection Four is OVERRULED.

Petitioner finally objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court decline
the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. Dkt. No. 24 at 10. After reviewing the evidence, the
Magistrate found that Petitioner failed to make a “substantial showing of denial” of his right to
effective assistance of counsel, which is required to issue such a certificate. See generally Dkt. No.
24; see also Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Objection Five is OVERRULED
because “reasonable jurists” would agree that the Magistrate carefully analyzed that Petitioner’s
counsel’s performance was reasonable. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (citing standard for

certificate of appealability).

III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Petitioner's Objections (Dkt. No. 31) are OVERRULED. The Court
ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 24) and DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner's§ 2255 Motion
(Dkt. No. 1). A certificate of appealability is DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED
to close this case.
Signed on this 9th day of April 2026.
olando Olvera /-
United States DistrfJudge
4
Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 32 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4