Hamberg v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6426
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hamberg was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and of two counts of using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
- Sentences were imposed consecutively: 276 months for conspiracy, 84 months for the first 924(c) count, and 300 months for the second 924(c) count, totaling 660 months.
- The district court reasoned that the firearms sentences were mandatory consecutive terms.
- The convictions and sentences were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Hamberg filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the consecutive firearms sentences.
- The issue on appeal is whether a single underlying drug offense can support multiple § 924(c) convictions and whether counsel’s failure to object was deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a single drug offense support multiple § 924(c) convictions? | Lucas controls; multiple uses allowed for separate victims/offenses. | Hamberg argues the same predicate cannot support two § 924(c) counts. | Lucas forecloses, permitting multiple § 924(c) counts for separate uses. |
| Was counsel deficient for not objecting to consecutive sentences? | Counsel should have objected to unsettled law on this issue. | Counsel acted within professional norms given settled circuit law at the time. | Counsel's performance was not deficient; Hamberg fails on the Strickland prejudice prong. |
| Did Hamberg suffer prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance? | Objection could have changed sentencing | No reasonable probability of different outcome given governing law. | No prejudice shown; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lucas, 932 F.2d 1210 (8th Cir. 1991) (each separate firearm use punishable under § 924(c) regardless of related counts)
- Fields v. United States, 201 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2000) (failure to raise unsettled-law arguments not per se deficient)
- New v. United States, 652 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2011) (highly deferential review; unsettled-law arguments not necessarily deficient)
- Parker v. Bowersox, 188 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 1999) (non-anticipation of law changes not deficient performance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standards)