Jermaine Alonzo Mitchell v. United States, 3:11-cv-00056

Defendant Mitchell moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence.
Government responded; Mitchell filed a traverse in support of the § 2255 motion.
The court historically considers Ninth Circuit authority (Hollis, Shaw) but relies on Supreme Court DePierre to decide the cocaine base issue.
DePierre holds that ‘cocaine base’ refers to all forms of cocaine base, not solely crack cocaine, for ADAA penalties.
In this case, indictment, jury instructions, and verdict referred to cocaine base and involved a 50-gram-plus quantity.
The court finds the ADAA-enhanced sentence appropriate under DePierre and denies the § 2255 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DePierre governs the cocaine base definition for ADAA	Mitchell argues DePierre forecloses harsher treatment only for crack.	Government argues the statute covers all cocaine base forms, including crack, under ADAA.	Denial; DePierre governs and supports the broader base definition.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to cocaine base proof	Counsel failed to object to lack of proof that the base was crack.	Objection unnecessary; government proved cocaine base involvement.	Denied; no prejudice shown from lack of objection.
Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge juror Jane Doe	Counsel’s failure to challenge potential bias prejudiced the defense.	Cannot show prejudice or different outcome; juror bias not proven.	Denied; no evidence that outcome would have differed.
Appellate counsel's handling of Apprendi issue	Appellate counsel should have raised Apprendi error.	No Apprendi error and no prejudice from not raising it on appeal.	Denied; no prejudice shown and no error established.

United States v. Hollis, 490 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (presents appellate framing for § 2255 denial and related defenses)
United States v. Shaw, 936 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1991) (precedes DePierre on base-cocaine interpretation guidance)