United States v. Zaia
751 F. Supp. 2d 132
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Zaia was indicted on 32 counts including conspiracy, alien smuggling, and witness tampering; plea negotiations occurred during 2007 with two Rule 11(c)(1)(C) offers, the second requiring a 15-year sentence and waiver of appeal, which Zaia accepted.
- Zaia was a naturalized U.S. citizen; the first plea proposed denaturalization and deportation which she rejected; the second plea preserved citizenship.
- Zaia pled guilty to counts including conspiracy and multiple alien-smuggling counts under the second plea, and the court sentenced her to 15 years as per the plea agreement.
- Zaia waived the right to appeal in the Plea Agreement; appellate counsel moved to dismiss the appeal; the Circuit dismissed the appeal and mandate issued.
- The Government later filed a Rule 35 motion and the court reduced the sentence to 144 months after downward departure; Zaia then filed §2255 and Rule 35 motions which the court denied.
- The current document is a memorandum denying Zaia’s §2255 motion and a motion for reconsideration; the court reserves memorializing orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had authority to reduce sentence under Rule 35 | Zaia seeks reduction for substantial assistance | No predicate; no motion from BOP; no lower guideline range | No authority; denied |
| Whether Zaia's §2255 motion shows ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to challenge prosecutors, lacked immigration expertise, failed to explain plea, intimidated by prosecutor, failed to file appeal, and inadequate trial prep | No deficient performance or prejudice; record shows proper plea and representation; no misstep prejudicial to outcome | Denied; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred in plea negotiations | Prosecutor falsely alleged past citizenship fraud to coerce plea | Plea offers were not alternatives available simultaneously; no prejudice | Denied; no actionable misconduct |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for dismissing the appeal | Appellate counsel lacked understanding; should not have dismissed | Counsel consulted with Zaia; waiver of appeal and near-guideline sentence; withdrawal appropriate | Denied; appellate counsel acted within professional duties |
| Whether the Rule 59(e) reconsideration was timely or proper | New arguments justify reconsideration | Untimely and reargument of prior positions | Denied; reconsideration timely or properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance; prejudice required)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (Supreme Court 1984) (per se ineffective assistance when no adversarial testing)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court 1985) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea claims)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court 2000) (test for appeal-related counsel performance)
- United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707 (10th Cir. 1997) (authority to modify sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c))
- United States v. Morris, 116 F.3d 501 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (§ 3582(c) modification limits)
- United States v. Hughes, 514 F.3d 15 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (Strickland standard applied to ineffective assistance claims)
- United States v. Farley, 72 F.3d 158 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (plea proceedings carry presumption of verity)
- Weaver v. United States, 265 F.3d 1074 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (due process in plea proceedings; miscarriage of justice standard)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (Supreme Court 1986) (ineffective assistance standards in collateral proceedings)
- United States v. Taylor, 339 F.3d 973 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (gaps in consultation regarding appeal; Flores-Ortega)
- United States v. Toms, 396 F.3d 427 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (highly deferential standard for attorney conduct)
- United States v. Geraldo, 271 F.3d 1112 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (prejudice inquiry for ineffective assistance)
- United States v. Sussman, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. notional) (narrowly referenced in context of appellate representation)