United States v. Scott
3 F.4th 189
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- DEA agents surveilled a hotel in a known high‑crime area after a tip; agents observed Sonny Scott briefly meet another person in the lot and later leave on a motorcycle.
- Agents conducted a stop at a Taco Bell drive‑thru, handcuffed Scott for officer safety, and in a protective search found a loaded revolver and controlled substances.
- Scott was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). Counsel Rachel Yazbeck received discovery, reviewed the redacted DEA report with Scott, and Scott asked her to file a suppression motion; she declined.
- Scott pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, was sentenced to 100 months, and direct appeal and certiorari were unsuccessful.
- Scott filed a pro se § 2255 motion claiming (1) ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress and (2) a Rehaif‑based defect; the district court denied relief but granted a COA on the ineffective assistance and Rehaif issues.
- On appeal Scott conceded the Rehaif claim is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent; the Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of ineffective assistance, holding counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategic choice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel ineffective for not filing suppression motion | Yazbeck ignored Scott’s request, misapplied Fourth Amendment law, and failed to investigate; decision not strategic and prejudicial | Yazbeck reasonably reviewed discovery, consulted Scott, did legal research, and declined for strategic reasons (avoid exposing Scott to drug charges; pursue cooperation) | Not ineffective under Strickland; performance was reasonable and strategic, so claim fails |
| Investigation was inadequate | Counsel made a cursory review and should have independently investigated the DEA report and witnesses | Counsel’s investigation (review of discovery, client interview, legal research) was reasonable given risks; limited investigation was part of a coherent strategy | Investigation adequate or reasonably limited by strategy; no Strickland deficiency |
| Rehaif challenge to conviction | Scott argued Rehaif renders conviction unconstitutional | Government relied on circuit precedent requiring prejudice showing; Scott conceded Rehaif claim is foreclosed | Not reached on merits; claim foreclosed by circuit precedent (Lavalais) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding prosecution must prove defendant knew prohibited status under § 922(g))
- United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2020) (Rehaif errors require showing of actual prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (standards for ineffective assistance involving Fourth Amendment claims)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
- Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382 (11th Cir. 1998) (counsel unreasonable where no investigation was undertaken despite clear indicia that investigation would have exculpated)