Chavez v. United States, 3:07-cv-00515

Indictment charged conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (Count One) and use or carry a firearm during/relating to a drug crime (Count Two); later a superseding indictment added illegal alien firearm possession (Count Four).
Petitioner pled guilty to Counts One and Two on the trial date without a plea agreement; Rule 11 colloquy informed him of mandatory minimums (10-year for Count One and 5-year consecutive for Count Two).
Sentencing hearing on August 1, 2006 imposed 120-month minimum on Count One and 60-month minimum on Count Two; judgment entered and direct appeal upheld the court’s compliance with Rule 11 and lack of authority to impose a variance.
PetitionerFiled a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to advise about consecutive sentences and failure to negotiate a plea), and claimed the court had authority for a variance and a lack of factual basis.
Court applies Strickland standard; finds no prejudice from alleged counsel failures; Rule 11 colloquy and prior findings negate prejudice; mandate rule bars reconsideration of variance; factual basis found at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentences prejudice	Soto-Chavez claim: counsel failed to warn about consecutive terms.	Government/Defense: Rule 11 hearing clarified consecutive minimums; no prejudice shown.	No prejudice; Rule 11 colloquy supports knowing plea; no relief.
Plea agreement necessity	Counsel failed to negotiate a written plea.	No constitutional right to a plea; no likelihood of a more lenient sentence.	No relief; lack of entitlement to plea negotiations.
Authority for variance sentence	Court had authority to impose a variance sentence requested.	Fourth Circuit rejected on direct appeal; mandate precludes §2255 reconsideration.	Denied; mandate precludes relief on this issue.
Factual basis at Rule 11	Factual basis not found at Rule 11 hearing.	Factual basis found at sentencing; Rule 11 compliance affirmed.	Not entitled to relief; factual basis established.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prejudice and performance prongs for ineffective assistance)
Fields v. Attorney Gen. of State of Md., 956 F.2d 1290 (4th Cir. 1992) (burden on movant to prove prejudice; presumption of reasonableness)
Foster, 68 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1995) ( Rule 11 plea-informed of consecutive terms; prejudice eradicated)
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2002) (deferral of factual basis finding until sentencing)
Bell, 5 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1993) (mandate rule; cannot reconsider issues decided on appeal)
Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182 (4th Cir. 1976) (mandate rule; §2255 limitations on recasting issues)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (ineffective-assistance standard for guilty pleas)
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1977) (no plea right to a tentative agreement; negotiations not required)
Sexton v. French, 163 F.3d 874 (4th Cir. 1998) (prejudice standard for sentencing claims under Strickland)