Ruiz v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 3d 726

Trejo Ruiz, a minor participant in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy, was indicted and tried; a Second Superseding Indictment added a § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) machinegun count weeks before trial.
Jury convicted him on all counts; at sentencing the machinegun count carried a mandatory consecutive 30-year term, resulting in a total sentence of 480 months.
Trejo Ruiz filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request a jury instruction that the § 924(c) machinegun element requires mens rea (knowledge that the firearm was a machinegun).
Defense counsel admitted the omission was an oversight, not a strategic choice.
The trial record showed forensic and ATF expert proof the weapon was a machinegun, but no direct evidence Trejo Ruiz knew it was automatic; co‑defendant testimony described the gun as a “rifle” or “semi‑automatic.”
The district court found counsel’s failure unreasonable, concluded a mens rea instruction was required under governing precedent, and that Trejo Ruiz was prejudiced; it vacated the § 924(c) conviction and reduced the sentence by 360 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Trejo Ruiz)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) requires proof that defendant knew the firearm was a machinegun	Mens rea is required; counsel unreasonably failed to request instruction	No mens rea required; any mens rea argument was novel or unsupported at trial time	Court: Mens rea is required under § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii); jury should have been instructed accordingly
Whether counsel’s failure to request a mens rea instruction was deficient performance under Strickland	Failure was an oversight (counsel admits) and not strategy; reasonable counsel would have sought instruction	Counsel cannot be faulted for not anticipating adverse or unsettled law	Court: Performance was unreasonable given Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent (Staples, O’Brien, Tomlinson) available pretrial
Whether Trejo Ruiz was prejudiced by the omission (Strickland prejudice prong)	Record lacks direct evidence he knew the gun was automatic; a properly instructed jury likely would acquit on the machinegun count	Evidence (expert and circumstantial) could support a finding defendant knew the weapon was a machinegun	Court: Prejudice shown; likely acquittal on § 924(c) if mens rea required and properly instructed; vacated § 924(c) conviction
Remedy and sentence impact	Vacatur of § 924(c) conviction and corresponding sentence reduction	Opposed	Court: Grant § 2255 relief as to Count Four; vacated conviction and reduced sentence by 360 months

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (knowledge of firearm’s automatic capability required under related statute)
United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (machinegun finding under § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) is an element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Tomlinson, 67 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying Staples principle in Fourth Circuit; mens rea required where conviction turns on firearm’s particular nature)
United States v. Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 1999) (limits on claiming ineffective assistance based on later changes in law)
United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (declining to read a mens rea requirement for § 924(c) in that circuit; distinguished by court)
United States v. Haile, 685 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (similar Eleventh Circuit decision; issued during trial and treated as distinguishable)