United States v. Cummins, 3:05-cr-00400

Background

Petitioner Diane Beverly Siguenza was charged in an eighty-six count third superseding indictment in the Western District of North Carolina for a telemarketing sweepstakes scheme involving false pretenses and interstate wire transfers.
Counts included conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses (Count One), multiple wire fraud counts, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering counts; restitution and forfeiture provisions were included in the indictment.
Petitioner pled guilty to Count One (conspiracy) and Count Thirty-Four (wire fraud) pursuant to a Plea Agreement that dismissed 84 other counts and set restitution at $10,000,000 and joint-and-several liability with co-defendants.
On October 29, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent 80-month terms on Counts One and Thirty-Four and the 84 counts were dismissed, with a $10,000,000 restitution obligation; a consent forfeit of property at 40 Kindred Court, Chico, California was entered the same day.
Petitioner’s appeal was filed by counsel and later dismissed by agreement; in 2009 she filed a pro se §2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, claims of prosecutorial/coercive misconduct related to the Plea Agreement, and Fifth Amendment due process concerns related to forfeiture.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance due to conflict of interest	Siguenza argues counsel represented both her and son Sunny Siguenza and failed to disclose conflict.	Government contends conflict alone does not prove ineffectiveness given circumstances and restitution context.	No Strickland prejudice; no per se conflict; representation was not ineffective.
Prejudice from conflict of interest	Conflict prevented counsel from negotiating favorable terms or allowing trial strategy.	Plea and restitution were negotiated with awareness of larger scheme; no prejudice shown.	Siguenza failed to show a reasonable probability of more favorable outcome; prejudice not established.
Failure to file appeal due to coercion	Attorney coerced withdrawal of appeal to secure a favorable outcome.	Appeal was withdrawn at Siguenza’s direction; she understood penalties and chose to limit exposure.	No Strickland prejudice; withdrawal supported by record and understanding of penalties.
Voluntariness and breach related to forfeiture/Consent Order	Counsel and Government coercively induced consent to forfeit property; Plea breached.	Consent to forfeit substitute property complied with Plea Agreement and restitution obligations.	Consent Order lawful; no government breach or due process violation established.
Fifth Amendment due process in forfeiture	Fifth Amendment rights violated through coercion and breach of the Plea.	Record shows no due process violation; obligations and substitute asset mechanism were properly applied.	Fifth Amendment claims meritless; no due process violation proved.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (standard for evaluating counsel's effectiveness in guilty-plea context)
Royal v. Taylor, 188 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 1999) (prejudice prong for sentencing-related ineffectiveness)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (conflict of interest in multiple representation and plea negotiations)
Kibert v. Blankenship, 611 F.2d 520 (4th Cir. 1979) (joint representation does not per se violate effective assistance)
Sexton v. French, 163 F.3d 874 (4th Cir. 1998) (Strickland prejudice and reasonable probability standards)
Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526 (4th Cir. 1970) (Rule 4 procedures and evidentiary considerations in §2255 cases)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (formation of reasonable jurists standard for COA; procedural grounds)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (requirements for certificate of appealability on procedural grounds)
Fields v. Attorney Gen. of Md., 956 F.2d 1290 (4th Cir. 1992) (factor considerations in ineffective assistance and related claims)