United States v. Jackson, 19-30433

Melvin Jackson was convicted of felony firearm possession after an alleged shooting; the district court used U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(a)(1) to set his base offense level and sentenced him to 120 months under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1).
Jackson’s direct appeals were unsuccessful; he then filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the § 2A2.1(a)(1) enhancement on the ground that specific intent to kill was not shown.
The district court denied the § 2255 petition; the Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability limited to the ineffective-assistance claim.
The record showed defense counsel had timely objected at sentencing on mens rea grounds; Jackson’s claim focused on counsel’s alleged failure to press an objection based on insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill.
The court held that any objection based on Braxton v. United States would not have been meritorious because § 2A2.1 incorporates the mens rea for murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 and Fifth Circuit precedent (including Villanueva and earlier precedents) contradicted Jackson’s proposed argument.
Because Jackson failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient under Strickland, the court did not reach prejudice and affirmed the denial of the § 2255 petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the § 2A2.1(a)(1) enhancement for lack of specific intent to kill	Jackson: counsel failed to object to the guideline enhancement based on insufficient proof of specific intent to kill	Gov./court: counsel did object at sentencing on mens rea grounds; moreover an objection based on Braxton would not be meritorious because § 2A2.1 incorporates § 1111 mens rea and Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Jackson’s argument	Counsel was not deficient; Jackson failed Strickland’s performance prong and the denial of the § 2255 petition was affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991) (addresses mens rea for attempted killing under § 1114)
United States v. Conley, 349 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2003) (counsel must research and raise meritorious, controlling precedent)
United States v. Phillips, 210 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2000) (same principle on counsel’s duty to research)
United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)
United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1983) (precedential mens rea interpretation informing later cases)
United States v. Lemus-Gonzalez, 563 F.3d 88 (5th Cir. 2009) (precedential mens rea interpretation informing later cases)
United States v. Villanueva, [citation="541 F. App'x 486"] (5th Cir. 2013) (Fifth Circuit decision contradicting the specific-intent objection Jackson advocated)