United States v. Boedigheimer, 0:13-cr-00296

Background

Defendant Robert D. Boedigheimer, a former personal-injury lawyer, was convicted after an 11-day jury trial of two counts of money laundering and one count of making a false statement to an IRS agent; sentenced to 60 months (below Guidelines).
Case centered on cash payments from Brandon Lusk to Boedigheimer (characterized as loans or payroll advances) and testimony that the cash derived from Lusk’s marijuana distribution.
Key evidentiary items included Lusk’s testimony, text messages (some deleted), and summary exhibits (Gov’t Exs. 266, 269) summarizing cash flows.
Boedigheimer testified and consistently maintained innocence, claiming legitimate employment of Lusk and that he believed Lusk’s funds were legitimate.
On direct appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of mistrial and the 60-month sentence. Boedigheimer filed a §2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and sought to amend to add claims about admitted exhibits. The district court denied relief and a certificate of appealability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance re: plea offer	Counsel advised rejection of an alleged favorable offer to plead only to false-statement count; counsel prevented plea.	Boedigheimer would have accepted plea but for counsel; plea range would have been lower.	Denied — defendant’s persistent insistence on innocence shows no reasonable probability he would have pleaded guilty.
Trial counsel closing remarks (including slip “needs to be found guilty”)	Statements were "illogical/incomprehensible" and cumulatively ineffective.	Remarks were tactical; one slip was inadvertent and argued in context to favor acquittal.	Denied — wide deference to trial strategy; misstatement was a slip and not prejudicial.
Failure to press evidentiary issue (hearsay ruling re: Lusk’s father) in motion for new trial	Counsel should have pursued the evidentiary ruling on appeal; testimony about Lusk’s motive to lie was critical.	The record contained ample evidence of Lusk’s motive; counsel elicited alternative testimony; no prejudice.	Denied — issue properly litigated at trial; no reasonable probability of different outcome.
Appellate counsel ineffective for not appealing: (a) amount laundered; (b) obstruction enhancement; (c) denial of judgment of acquittal	Appellate counsel failed to challenge loss amount, two‑point obstruction enhancement, and denial of JOA/new trial.	Challenges lacked merit; jury verdict and PSR support enhancements; elimination of enhancements would not have reduced sentence below 60 months.	Denied — appellate strategy reasonable; no prejudice because adjusted Guidelines would not have produced lower sentence.
Motion to amend to add claim about Exhibits 266/269	Permit amendment to allege appellate counsel ineffective for not appealing admission of summary exhibits.	Admission was within district court’s discretion; appeal would have been futile and no prejudice shown.	Denied — amendment futile; evidentiary rulings were within discretion and exhibits were not outcome‑determinative.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, [citation="466 U.S. 668"] (ineffective assistance standard)
Lafler v. Cooper, [citation="566 U.S. 156"] (counsel during plea bargaining; prejudice standard)
Yarborough v. Gentry, [citation="540 U.S. 1"] (deference to counsel’s tactical decisions in closing)
Woods v. Donald, [citation="135 S. Ct. 1372"] (presumption counsel’s conduct reasonable)
Allen v. United States, [citation="854 F.3d 428"] (plea-stage prejudice test applicable)
Sanders v. United States, [citation="341 F.3d 720"] (defendant’s maintained innocence undermines plea‑offer claims)