Sandra White v. United States, 19-1732

Background

Sandra White was convicted for selling military-fare airline tickets to non‑military customers; sentencing loss was calculated as the difference between the price paid and the lowest available fare on the ticketing date based on airline ticket audits.
White filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alternative loss methodology (RASM: Revenue Per Available Seat Mile) she requested, and for failing to call witnesses or more aggressively cross‑examine government witnesses on loss calculations.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion; this Court granted a certificate of appealability only on the narrow question whether counsel’s failure to pursue the RASM methodology was deficient under Strickland.
The government argued White failed to identify witnesses counsel should have called, that counsel did cross‑examine prosecution witnesses and sought a downward variance and objections to enhancements, and that the government’s fare‑difference method was the appropriate measure of loss.
The Sixth Circuit applied Strickland and concluded counsel was not deficient: the fare‑difference/fair‑market approach was consistent with the Guidelines and prior case law, and airline testimony using standard ticket‑auditing practices was an acceptable basis for the loss calculation.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief and declined White’s request for remand as outside the scope of the COA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present the RASM loss methodology	White: counsel ignored her request; RASM would account for empty seats and produce a lower loss	Gov: White failed to ID witnesses; counsel cross‑examined experts and challenged enhancements; standard fare‑difference method is reasonable	Counsel not deficient; use of fare‑difference/fair‑market approach accepted; no Strickland relief
Whether remand for an evidentiary hearing is required	White: requests remand to present evidence supporting RASM/ineffective assistance	Gov/Panel: COA did not authorize remand; issue exceeds scope	Remand denied; exceeds COA scope

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
United States v. White, 846 F.3d 170 (6th Cir.) (direct‑appeal decision affirming reliance on ticket‑audit loss methodology)
Wingate v. United States, 969 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2255 ineffective‑assistance claims)
Carter v. Bell, 218 F.3d 581 (6th Cir.) (citing Strickland standard)
Lundgren v. Mitchell, 440 F.3d 754 (6th Cir.) (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one fails)
United States v. Moore, 225 F.3d 637 (6th Cir.) ("loss" ordinarily the fair‑market value under the Guidelines)
United States v. Scher, 601 F.3d 408 (5th Cir.) (approving ticketing audit methods for loss calculation)
United States v. Onyiego, 286 F.3d 249 (5th Cir.) (ticketing fraud loss calculations)
Schreane v. Ebbert, 864 F.3d 446 (3d Cir.) (limitations on COA scope and remand)
United States v. Teadt, [citation="653 F. App'x 421"] (6th Cir.) (definition of fair market value in fraud loss context)