Ernest Haney v. United States, 962 F.3d 370

Haney pleaded guilty to knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography after investigators found files on computers at his mother’s home and he admitted installing Ares file‑sharing software and downloading such material.
The presentence report applied a two‑level enhancement for knowing distribution under USSG §2G2.2(b)(3)(F); defense counsel initially objected but withdrew the objection at sentencing.
The district court applied the enhancement, granted a three‑level acceptance reduction, calculated an advisory range of 235–240 months, and imposed a downward variance to 180 months. Haney did not appeal.
Haney filed a §2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to (a) argue a two‑level decrease under USSG §2G2.2(b)(1) and (b) press an objection to the two‑level distribution enhancement, relying on affidavits from his mother and daughter that he was unaware the program distributed files.
The district court denied the §2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding counsel’s performance was not deficient (Haney had admitted installing Ares and pleaded to distribution) and, alternatively, that Haney suffered no prejudice.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding counsel’s choices were objectively reasonable given Haney’s plea admissions, the risks of contradicting those admissions (loss of acceptance credit, obstruction/perjury findings), and the role of the prosecutor’s support for a downward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a two‑level decrease under USSG §2G2.2(b)(1) (limited to receipt)	Haney: conduct was limited to receipt; decrease should apply.	Court/Govt: file‑sharing distributed material; distribution occurred regardless of claimed ignorance, so the decrease is inapplicable.	Counsel not ineffective; decrease unavailable because distribution occurred.
Whether counsel was ineffective for withdrawing the objection to the two‑level distribution enhancement under USSG §2G2.2(b)(3)(F) and not presenting family affidavits/ Durham argument	Haney: counsel should have presented evidence of "concrete ignorance" about automatic file sharing (per Durham) to avoid enhancement.	Court/Govt: Haney pleaded to distribution and admitted installing Ares; retracting admissions risked losing acceptance credit, triggering obstruction/perjury findings, and losing prosecutor support for a downward variance—making withdrawal a reasonable strategy.	Counsel’s decision to withdraw the objection was objectively reasonable; no ineffective assistance, affirming denial of §2255 relief.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir.) (defendant’s concrete evidence of ignorance about file sharing can negate knowing distribution in a receipt‑only conviction)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (guilty plea admits the elements of the charged offenses)
United States v. Ray, 704 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir.) (explaining that §2G2.2(b)(1) does not apply when defendant distributed child pornography)
United States v. Zeaiter, 891 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir.) (discusses loss of acceptance reduction where defendant falsely denies relevant conduct)
United States v. Fischer, 551 F.3d 751 (8th Cir.) (same principle regarding acceptance credit and credibility)