Gonzalez v. United States, 433 F. App'x 24

Gonzalez pled guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to traffic in crack cocaine and was sentenced below the Guidelines range after a career-offender designation.
The career-offender determination depended in part on a 1993 Connecticut narcotics conviction (sale of narcotics) and a 2006 robbery conviction.
Gonzalez appealed a district court denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court denied the petition; this court granted a COA limited to counsel’s failure to object to the career-offender designation.
The government conceded the 1993 conviction record was insufficient to qualify as a controlled-substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b).
Even without the 1993 conviction, González remained a career offender due to the 1993 third-degree robbery and the 2006 second-degree robbery convictions, both deemed predicates under the guidelines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's failure to challenge the 1993 narcotics conviction was ineffective.	Gonzalez argues counsel failed to contest the 1993 conviction as a predicate.	Govt. agrees on insufficiency of the 1993 record; still, career offender designation stands.	No relief; record supports career offender status even without 1993 conviction.
Whether Gonzalez was properly classified as a career offender under § 4B1.1 and § 4B1.2.	Counsel should have argued the 1993 conviction fails as a predicate.	Even without 1993, 1993 robbery and 2006 robbery satisfy predicate crimes.	Gonzalez properly designated a career offender.
Whether the 2006 robbery conviction is a valid predicate under § 4B1.2(c) for the timing requirement.	The 2006 conviction occurred after the offense conduct in this case.	For § 4B1.2(c), the conviction date is the guilty plea date, not sentencing.	Correct; 2006 plea date controls, sustaining career offender status.
Whether the remainder of Gonzalez's claims fall within the COA or were properly not reached.	Requests broader review of sentencing issues beyond COA.	COA limits review to lack of objection to career-offender designation.	Claims outside COA were not considered; substantive outcome unchanged.

United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008) (gives framework for what constitutes a predicate offense under § 4B1.2)
Parisi v. United States, 529 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2008) (Strickland’s prejudice and reasonableness in light of evolving law)
Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2001) (requires assessing counsel performance with information available at the time)
Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 511 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2007) (establishes when a prior conviction date for § 4B1.2(C) timing is determined)
United States v. Payne, 591 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (conspiracy as continuing offense affecting predicate determinations)
Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing § 2255 and factual findings on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the Strickland performance and prejudice standards)
United States v. Ogman, 535 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (career-offender predicate analysis post-2007)
United States v. Triestman, 178 F.3d 624 (2d Cir. 1999) (scope of § 2255 review and COA considerations)
United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for assessing ineffective assistance claims)