United States v. Bates, 2:16-cr-20280

Bates robbed a TCF Bank on Feb. 9, 2016 by passing a written demand note; teller gave $226 in bait bundles that included a GPS tracker. Bates fled and was captured after MSP tracked the GPS; surveillance and serial-number matches tied him to the robbery. 128 dollars were recovered from his jacket.
Indicted for bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)), Bates pleaded guilty pursuant to a Rule 11 plea agreement on Sept. 21, 2016; the agreement recommended a 120‑month sentence.
The district court sentenced Bates to 120 months on Jan. 30, 2017 (concurrent with a state sentence), a 31‑month downward departure from guideline range agreed by parties.
Bates filed a § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain a psychological evaluation and present mitigating mental‑health evidence; he alleged diagnoses and medication needs but did not challenge competency at plea or sentencing.
The record shows Bates and counsel discussed his mental‑health history at plea and sentencing; the court considered those factors and imposed mental‑health and substance‑abuse conditions of supervision.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion with prejudice, finding counsel’s performance was not deficient and Bates showed no Strickland prejudice; the court also denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain psychological evaluation	Bates: counsel should have ordered an evaluation and presented it as mitigating evidence to seek a downward departure	Government/Court: counsel reasonably presented Bates’s mental‑health history and sought concurrent sentence; no showing evaluation would change outcome	Denied — counsel not deficient and no prejudice under Strickland
Prejudice from alleged omission (would sentence or plea differ?)	Bates: evaluation might qualify him for a downward departure and reduce sentence	Government/Court: plea agreement already provided a 120‑month recommendation (downward from guidelines); no evidence an evaluation would produce a different plea or sentence	Denied — no reasonable probability of a different result
Competency at plea/sentencing	Bates: sought evaluation but did not assert incompetency	Government/Court: record shows Bates understood proceedings, was on medication, and testified coherently at plea	No competency claim made; court found no basis to question competency
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Bates: (implicitly) issues warrant appeal	Government/Court: issues are not debatable among jurists of reason	Denied — petitioner failed to make substantial showing of constitutional violation

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (application of Strickland to guilty pleas)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (deferential review of counsel’s performance)
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (no constitutional right to plea bargain)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (standard for certificate of appealability)