United States v. Owens, 94 F.4th 481

Jacob Ray Owens pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and was sentenced to 324 months' imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
The sentencing was based on the presentence report (PSR) which attributed at least 2.56 kilograms of actual methamphetamine to Owens—the amount included 10.6 ounces seized at arrest and five pounds allegedly trafficked from Mexico with a co-conspirator, Stowe.
The purity of the methamphetamine attributed to Owens was not directly tested; the court inferred purity based on a separate batch found with a co-conspirator, which tested at 98%.
Owens filed a § 2255 motion seeking to vacate his sentence, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to contest the purity determination used to calculate his sentence.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding there was no prejudice under Strickland as the record supported using the high purity level.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, though there was a dissent arguing the evidence was insufficiently reliable to conclusively attribute the same high purity to the drugs linked to Owens.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel’s failure to object to purity of meth attributed to him	Owens should have been sentenced under lower guidelines for a mixture, not actual meth, since no proof of purity	Government argued sufficient reliability in PSR supports inference of purity from co-conspirator batch	No reasonable probability of different result—no prejudice under Strickland
District court’s reliance on PSR’s purity inference	PSR was insufficient to support finding; evidentiary hearing was needed	Government argued PSR reliability and no need for further hearing	District court's reliance on PSR was proper; no hearing required
Appellate counsel’s effectiveness	Failure to raise strong argument on appeal constituted inadequate representation	Performance not prejudicial—sentence would not have changed	No prejudice; appellate counsel's performance does not entitle relief
Sentencing guidelines application	Should use mixture guideline due to lack of evidence for actual meth	Purity inference reasonable from record and conspiracy evidence	Guidelines application upheld; quantity and purity properly inferred

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
United States v. Aparicio, 963 F.3d 470 (guidelines require using actual meth if it results in a higher offense level)
United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (sentencing courts may rely on presentence reports with sufficient indicia of reliability)
United States v. Sherrod, 964 F.2d 1501 (district court’s factual findings at sentencing must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence)
United States v. Lucio, 985 F.3d 482 (deference to district court drug quantity and quality findings if plausible on record)