Warenback v. Neven, 2:15-cv-01789

Petitioner Douglas Warenback pleaded guilty (June 19, 2013) to pandering of a child and was sentenced to 48–120 months custody; no direct appeal was filed.
At sentencing the victim’s mother gave an impact statement and played voicemail recordings Warenback left; she briefly referenced a prior child‑pornography conviction.
Defense counsel declined to cross‑examine the mother at sentencing; the court imposed the top of the recommended range, citing Warenback’s history and lack of empathy.
Warenback raised an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim in state postconviction proceedings alleging counsel waived his right to cross‑examine without his consent; the Nevada Court of Appeals rejected the claim.
Federal habeas petition raised the same IAC claim; the district court denied relief under AEDPA, concluding the state court’s Strickland analysis was reasonable and that Warenback failed to show prejudice.
The district court also denied a certificate of appealability (COA), finding the rulings are not debatable among reasonable jurists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing for waiving cross‑examination of the victim’s mother	Warenback: counsel waived right without his consent; cross would have impeached voicemail/prior‑acts references and could have affected sentence	Respondents: testimony did not trigger cross‑examination rules; prior conviction already disclosed; mother’s reference was brief; no reasonable probability of different sentence	Denied — state court reasonably applied Strickland; no prejudice shown under AEDPA deference
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Warenback: seeks COA to appeal denial	Respondents: rulings are not debatable; Slack standard not met	Denied — petitioner did not make a substantial showing of a constitutional claim

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑part test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty‑plea IAC claims)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; "doubly deferential" review for IAC)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limitations on federal review of state‑court records under AEDPA)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (definitions of "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under § 2254(d))
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (clarifies § 2254(d) unreasonableness standard)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (role of federal habeas review respecting state courts)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (performance measured against prevailing professional norms)
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (state court IAC adjudication standard under § 2254)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (deference to counsel’s strategic choices on federal habeas)
Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943 (deference to state court factual findings)
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (standard for overturning state‑court factual findings)
Buschauer v. State, 804 P.2d 1046 (Nevada rule on when cross‑examination at sentencing is permitted)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a COA)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (context for COA standards)