United States v. De La Torre-Santana, 4:12-cr-00614

Background

Samuel Castro‑Flores was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses (hostage taking and related conspiracies, harboring and transporting undocumented aliens, illegal reentry after an aggravated felony, and firearm offenses) and sentenced to life imprisonment; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
Main § 2255 claims: (1) trial counsel failed to communicate/negotiate a 96‑month plea offer; (2) counsel failed to determine whether the Mexican Consulate had been notified under the Vienna Convention; (3) counsel facilitated Speedy Trial Act and constitutional speedy‑trial violations; (4) appellate counsel failed to raise Johnson v. United States against § 924(c) firearm convictions.
Trial counsel submitted an affidavit and the record (pretrial conference and signed plea‑offer statement) showing the Government offered dismissal of other counts if Castro‑Flores pled to Count 1, Castro‑Flores declined and insisted on innocence, and the plea‑offer was conveyed with translation.
Court found (a) no record support for a 96‑month plea offer and no reasonable probability Castro‑Flores would have pleaded guilty; (b) Vienna Convention Article 36 creates no individually enforceable right in this context; (c) record shows ends‑of‑justice findings for continuances so no Speedy Trial Act violation; (d) Johnson did not provide relief for his § 924(c) convictions and appellate counsel’s omission caused no prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plea‑offer / ineffective assistance	Counsel failed to convey/negotiate a 96‑month plea and advised rejection	Counsel conveyed offer to plead to Count 1 (dismiss other counts); defendant insisted on innocence and trial	No evidence a 96‑month offer existed or that defendant would have pleaded; no Strickland prejudice; claim denied
Vienna Convention / consulate contact	Counsel failed to determine/ensure Mexican Consulate notification under Article 36	Counsel did not contact consulate but provided translation and saw no benefit from consular involvement	Article 36 does not create an individually enforceable right; no prejudice shown; claim denied
Speedy Trial (statutory/constitutional)	Counsel facilitated violation; many non‑excludable days meant >70 days to trial	Court made on‑record ends‑of‑justice findings for continuances; counsel and court preserved rights; defendant was informed	Continuances were excludable under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8); no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claim denied
Appellate counsel / Johnson challenge	Appellate counsel should have raised Johnson to attack § 924(c) convictions	Court previously ruled Johnson inapplicable to his convictions; raising it would not have changed outcome	Johnson inapplicable; no prejudice from appellate omission; claim denied

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) (strong presumption that counsel’s performance falls within reasonable professional assistance)
United States v. Grammas, 376 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004) (prejudice standard in sentencing context)
United States v. Jimenez‑Nava, 243 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2001) (Article 36 of Vienna Convention does not create individually enforceable right)
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (Vienna Convention does not by itself create enforceable individual rights in U.S. courts)
United States v. Stephens, 489 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2007) (ends‑of‑justice continuances excludable under Speedy Trial Act)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (categorical approach to violent‑felony/ACCA definitions; court found Johnson inapplicable here)