James Harold Griffith v. United States, 871 F.3d 1321

In 2008 Griffith was arrested and convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and related firearms offenses; the jury found 150.18 grams as the weight of the “mixture or substance” containing methamphetamine.
The PSR and district court used laboratory weights (150.18 g methamphetamine-containing liquids; 124.90 g pseudoephedrine-containing liquids) to set a Guidelines range (total offense level 34 → 188–235 months) and applied statutory mandatory minimums that produced a combined mandatory minimum of 180 months. Griffith received 248 months (later reduced to 211 months).
Griffith filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge inclusion of waste/toxic liquids (non-usable materials) in the drug-quantity calculation; he alleged he began with only 2.4 g pseudoephedrine and that many seized liquids were unusable waste.
The district court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied relief; this Court granted a COA limited to whether Griffith was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance claim about drug-quantity calculation.
The Eleventh Circuit held the district court erred and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, concluding Griffith alleged non-conclusory facts that, if true, would show deficient performance and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge that seized liquids were non-usable waste and thus should not count toward drug weight for § 841(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1	Griffith: counsel failed to investigate or object; seized liquids were toxic/waste or precursors and could not produce >2.4 g methamphetamine, so their whole weight should not have been counted	Government/district court: record lacked testimony on usability; counsel reasonably relied on government/probation and therefore acted competently	Court: Allegations, accepted as true for § 2255 screening, show counsel likely performed deficiently by not researching or pursuing usability challenge; remand for hearing
Whether Griffith showed Strickland prejudice from counsel’s omission (i.e., reasonable probability of different sentence)	Griffith: erroneous higher Guidelines range and application of statutory minimum likely affected sentence; district court imposed bottom of the (incorrect) range	Government: Molina-Martinez concerns direct-review plain-error; no presumption of prejudice on collateral review; Cronic limits	Court: Applying Molina-Martinez principle, because sentencing relied on an incorrect higher Guidelines range and mandatory minimum and court imposed the bottom of that range, Griffith alleged sufficient prejudice to warrant evidentiary hearing

Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) (adopts market-oriented approach; carrier medium included in drug weight when it is usable in distribution)
Rolande-Gabriel v. United States, 938 F.2d 1231 (11th Cir. 1991) (exclude liquid waste that renders mixture unusable; weight limited to usable mixture)
Newsome v. United States, 998 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes usable partially processed materials from unusable sludge; exclude toxic waste from weight)
Grant v. United States, 397 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) (liquid form of LSD counted where liquid is a usable carrier/means of ingestion)
Segura-Baltazar v. United States, 448 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2006) (cutting agent properly included where mixture is a legally cognizable ‘mixture’ and usable)