Deltoro-Aguilera v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22804

Deltoro-Aguilera was convicted in 1996 of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to life.
Appellate court remanded in 1998 for insufficient evidence supporting a three-level role enhancement; resentenced on Aug. 19, 1998 to 324 months and five years' supervised release.
Deltoro appealed the new sentence and the court summarily affirmed in 1998.
Deltoro filed a 1999 § 2255 motion asserting three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising about safety valve eligibility.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; Judge Shanahan adopted the magistrate’s report.
A certificate of appealability was limited to the claim that counsel failed to advise about safety valve eligibility under § 5C1.2; the case proceeds on de novo review of the § 2255 claim by the Eighth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to inform about safety valve eligibility was deficient performance.	Deltoro asserts counsel should have advised of potential § 5C1.2 relief after remand.	Government contends Deltoro was not eligible due to lack of information provided and no testifying obligation.	No reversible error; failure to inform did not prejudice where eligibility was lacking given trial posture and evidence.
Whether Deltoro demonstrated prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiency.	Deltoro would have testified truthfully if informed of safety valve.	No prejudicial effect proven because he offered no specific facts or testimony.	Prejudice not shown; conclusory assertion insufficient for § 2255 relief.
Whether the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing without abuse of discretion.	Deltoro needed an evidentiary hearing to present prejudice evidence.	Record and pleadings sufficed to adjudicate without a hearing.	No abuse of discretion; record conclusively shows lack of entitlement.
Whether the safety valve is discretionary or mandatory in this context.	Safety valve relief could apply post-remand if criteria met.	§ 5C1.2 is not discretionary when criteria are met.	Safety valve is mandatory if the five criteria are met; not discretionary.

United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1995) (governs de novo review in § 2255 proceedings and standard for mixed questions of law and fact)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court) (deficiency and prejudice required for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Buster v. United States, 447 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 2006) (review of § 2255 motions where claims rely on record; determinations noted)
Sanders v. United States, 341 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2003) (standards for evaluating claims on motion and record)
Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2010) (requirement to look beyond discretion when denying evidentiary hearing)
United States v. Hendricks, 171 F.3d 1184 (8th Cir. 1999) (safety valve provision is not discretionary when criteria are met)
United States v. Tournier, 171 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 1999) (government must receive information by sentencing to trigger safety valve)