United States v. David Mayhew, 995 F.3d 171

Mayhew was charged with mail/wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions, and conspiracy arising from an investment scheme; a superseding indictment was filed and some counts later dismissed pre-trial.
Government offered a plea to a single conspiracy count with a stated 0–5 year exposure; Mayhew alleges his trial counsel "guaranteed" a 2–5 year sentence if he proceeded to trial and was convicted, so he rejected the plea.
After Mayhew rejected the offer but before trial, the district court’s arraignment admonitions (that lawyers’ estimates are only estimates and recited statutory maximums) were given; the plea offer does not appear to have remained open.
Mayhew was convicted at trial and sentenced to 320 months’ imprisonment; the PSR attributed roughly $2,026,000 in losses, triggering a 16-level Guidelines enhancement and $2,025,300 in restitution.
Mayhew filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging (1) ineffective assistance for misadvice during plea bargaining and (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object to certain restitution/loss amounts. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing; this appeal followed with a certificate of appealability on both issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mayhew)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Counsel’s alleged guarantee that trial conviction would yield 2–5 years caused rejection of plea	Counsel guaranteed 2–5 years; but for that advice Mayhew would have accepted the 0–5 year plea	Record shows arraignment admonitions corrected any misadvice; Mayhew proceeded to trial despite admonition so no prejudice	Vacated dismissal and remanded for evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance plea-misadvice claim — arraignment warnings after plea rejection do not conclusively eliminate prejudice
Counsel’s failure to object to inclusion of certain losses in restitution/loss calculation	Objects should have been raised because included losses were tied to dismissed counts; omission caused excessive restitution and Guidelines enhancement	Challenges to restitution orders not cognizable under § 2255; even if some restitution amounts improper, restitution relief is not relief "to be released"	Affirmed that § 2255 cannot be used to vacate restitution order; but remanded because claim that erroneous loss figure affected Guidelines range (and thus term of imprisonment) is cognizable and requires district-court review

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (ineffective assistance in plea context; prejudice requires reasonable probability the defendant would have accepted plea and received lesser sentence)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range can establish prejudice)
United States v. Foster, 68 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1995) (arraignment/Rule 11 corrections can cure counsel misinformation when plea follows)
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (in § 2255 appeals, facts viewed most favorably to movant when no evidentiary hearing)
United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003) (MVRA restitution limited to losses from offense of conviction)
United States v. Freeman, 741 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2014) (restitution must be tied to specific conduct forming basis of conviction)
Kaminski v. United States, 339 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2003) (§ 2255 does not provide avenue to challenge restitution orders)