United States v. Ramirez
671 F. App'x 1013
10th Cir.2016Background
- Ramirez and co-defendants were indicted in a multi-count drug and money-laundering conspiracy; Ramirez pleaded guilty to two counts (drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and money-laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)) as part of a plea agreement that included a broad waiver of appeal and collateral attack.
- Ten other counts were dismissed under the plea agreement; Ramirez received a 180-month sentence later reduced to 151 months under Amendment 782, plus three years supervised release.
- Ramirez filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in four respects: (1) failing to object to marijuana quantity in the PSR; (2) failing to advise that the chemical composition of ecstasy pills could be contested; (3) failing to warn that this conviction could increase a pending California sentence; and (4) misinforming him about his sentencing exposure (including managerial-role enhancement and effect of prior misdemeanors).
- The district court denied relief and a certificate of appealability (COA); Ramirez sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit, which considered waiver enforceability and the merits of the ineffective-assistance claims that challenged the plea’s validity.
- The Tenth Circuit enforced the plea-waiver for claims attacking sentencing (including the marijuana-quantity objection), found three other claims (chemical-testing, California sentence effect, and sentencing-estimate/role-enhancement advice) challenge the plea validity and reviewed them on the merits, and denied a COA and appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Ramirez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of plea-waiver for collateral attack on sentence | Waiver should not bar collateral review because of alleged ineffective assistance; cites DOJ Cole memo | Waiver is enforceable if knowing/voluntary and not resulting in miscarriage of justice; Cole memo not part of district record and not preserved | Waiver enforced for sentencing-related claims; Cole memo argument forfeited and not considered |
| Counsel failed to object to marijuana quantity in PSR | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to quantity used for sentencing | Claim falls within waiver and does not attack plea validity; no miscarriage of justice shown | Waiver bars this claim; denied |
| Counsel failed to advise that ecstasy chemical composition could be contested | Had counsel advised/testing occurred, sentencing range might be lower and he would not have pled guilty | No evidence testing would have reduced guideline range; stipulated pill quantity was far less than PSR amount and plea was informed | No prejudice shown under Strickland/Hill; claim fails |
| Counsel failed to warn plea could affect pending California case | Ramirez would have been prejudiced because this conviction could increase his later California guideline calculation | The Oklahoma and California charges were related / part of same underlying conduct; thus the Oklahoma conviction is not a "prior sentence" for USSG §4A1.2 | No prejudice and counsel was not ineffective for failing to warn of an unlikely consequence |
| Counsel misled about sentence range, managerial-role enhancement, and prior misdemeanors | Counsel gave an inaccurate estimate (6–10 yrs) vs trial (16+ yrs) and failed to explain enhancements/effects | An erroneous sentencing estimate alone is not constitutionally deficient; the plea and colloquy warned of statutory maximum and judge’s discretion | No deficiency or prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing | Ramirez requested hearing to present facts supporting ineffectiveness claims | District court found Ramirez alleged no facts that would entitle him to relief and thus hearing unnecessary | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Hahn v. United States, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. en banc) (standards for enforcing plea-waivers and miscarriage-of-justice exceptions)
- Cockerham v. United States, 237 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (plea-waiver does not bar ineffective-assistance claims attacking plea/waiver validity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice test for ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context)