Derrick Downs-Morgan v. United States

HENDERSON, Before FAY and Circuit *, Judges, and NICHOLS Senior Circuit Judge.

ALBERT HENDERSON, J. Circuit Judge: Downs-Morgan appeals from

Derrick District Court order of the United deny- of Florida for the Southern District * Circuit, Nichols, Jr., sitting by designation. Judge Philip for the Federal Honorable U.S. Circuit pur- vacate his sentence petition

ing 1251(a)(ll), under 8 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. without first suant and excludable from § the United States un- conducting evidentiary hearing. Be- 1182(a)(23). der 8 U.S.C. May 29, On § petition in the the facts war- cause he filed a “Petition for Writ of Coram relief, we rant collateral reverse and re- Nobis, Motion for Leave to Withdraw Plea evidentiary hearing. mand for an Guilty and Motion to Judgment Vacate and Sentence” in the district request- Nicaragua, resident of Morgan, a ing evidentiary hearing alleging conspiracy indicted in the district court for guilty plea that his was not entered intelli- import marijuana in to violation of 21 gently and that he was denied effective (Count 952(a), I) posses- U.S.C. §§ assistance of counsel. The district court marijuana sion with intent to distribute correctly petition treated the as a motion 841(a)(1), violation U.S.C. §§ pursuant 2255,2 made see, to 28 U.S.C. (Count II). According § allegations to the States, Wright v. United petition, pled he originally to (5th Cir.1980)(section 2255 motion used charges, changed both but later to collaterally attack constitutionality of guilty on I government Count after the guilty plea),3 and summarily agreed denied it on to dismiss Count II and his June 1984 without holding hearing.4 represented that the conviction would not subject deportation him to Nicaragua. appeal, Downs-Morgan On contends that deprived he was 23, 1983, process of due

On November twenty over law because the apprise months into his trial court failed year sentence, three him Downs-Morgan immigration of the applied consequences political for asylum the United alleging and because that his he based his anti- communist views subject representation him erroneous his at- punishment harsh upon torney or death his return would not subject Nicaragua. thus, While request would not be re- pending, he was parole released on turned Nicaragua. addition, to the In urges he custody Immigration of the that his attorney’s Naturaliza- advice constituted inef- tion Service.1 fective assistance of counsel.5 He then learned for the first time that The case must be remanded to the dis- drug conviction subject made him trict court for an evidentiary hearing un- 1. The record does not disclose whether clarification to resolve the conflict between the acted request. this orders, June 1984 and June Downs-Morgan application states that the court vacated the referral mandate and affirmed political asylum denied, will automatically denying petition. former order presumably pursuant 1253(h)(2), to 8 U.S.C. § uphold should this court guilty plea. arguments 5. The appeal slightly raised on are argued different from those before the district provides 2. The statute part: in relevant Downs-Morgan court. originally did not seek prisoner A custody under sentence of a judge’s relief based on the trial failure to inform Congress established claiming Act of immigration consequences him of the of his right ground to be released fact, guilty plea. In he admitted in a brief in imposed the sentence was in violation of the support petition of his respon- that it “is not the Constitution or laws of the United States ... sibility of the trial court to advise the defendant imposed move the court which the sen- deportation consequences of federal at the time vacate, tence to set aside or correct the sen- taking guilty plea____” Record at 50. On tence. however, appeal, appears he to assert that Fed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. requires judge R.Crim.P. 11 apprise the trial immigration consequences of the of the Prichard, City Bonner v. 661 F.2d 1206 Also, plea. Downs-Morgan apparently (11th Cir.1981) (en based his banc), adopted this court as arguments ignorance in the precedent district court on his all decisions of the former Fifth Cir- immigration consequences prior cuit decided to October appeal, urges On that his counsel’s affirma- 4. On June the district court misrepresentation issued an impor- tive is an additional referring order magistrate the matter to a may properly tant factor. We consider these review. After arguments filed a Singleton motion for new in our discretion. See Wright, 624 F.2d at 558-59; United States files and records “the motion less Crook, (5th Cir.1979) pris- conclusively show that case curiam). (per to no relief.” U.S.C. is entitled oner States, Fontaine v. United § judge obligated The trial personally the rule to disclose those curiam). (per We consequences guilty plea specifically determine, therefore, whether the un- forth in the rule. set allega- Dayton, in the record and disputed Cir.1979) facts petition banc) warrant Downs-Morgan’s (en (consequences tions of are “inclu listed denied, exclusive”), section 2255. relief under sive collateral (1980). L.Ed.2d 320 immigration The effect of status is not Fed.R. Crim.P. I. Although rule. rule mentioned in the Procedure Federal Rule of Criminal requires divulge the court the “mandato personally to the trial court requires 11 ry penalty” and “maximum minimum the specified defendant of certain the inform 11(c)(1), possible penalty,” Fed.R.Crim.P. possible consequences before ac rights and phrases these we do not read as encom See Fed.R.Crim.P. guilty plea. cepting a passing possible deportation exclusion. or (d), (f).6 11(c), Collateral relief is available Advisory Committee Notes to the rule only of when the violations Rule “objective is state that the to insure that a defect is a “fundamental which infraction what defendant knows minimum sentence inherently complete results in a miscar judge impose and the what maximum or riage justice” of an “omission inconsist judge may impose.” sentence Notes of the rudimentary the demands of fair ent with Advisory the Committee on Rule Timmreck, United Mi procedure.” see also (emphasis added); Amendment States, chel v. United 783-84, (2d F.2d Cir.1974) also (1979); (the “only that judge must assure (4) Wulff, plea guilty if his of or nolo conten- (1976); Roofing accepted by & dere the there will not is court Sheet kind, Services, Inc., Inns, by LaQuinta Inc. Motor be a further trial of so Metal Cir.1982). (11th pleading guilty he or contendere F.2d 989-90 nolo trial; right to a and waives the (5) provides part: question de- in relevant court intends to the 6. Fed.R.Crim.P. if the oath, record, in fendant under (c) accepting Advice to Defendant. Before presence to the of counsel the offense contendere, about guilty plea a of nolo the court pleaded, his answers which he has personally defendant in must address the against prosecution later a of, be used him in open court and him and determine inform perjury false understands, statement. following: he the (d) Voluntary. Insuring the Plea That is (1) charge nature to which the accept plea guilty offered, or nolo not a shall mandatory plea is minimum first, addressing by law, contendere without provided by any, penalty if and the court, open law, personally determin- possible provided by defendant ing penalty maximum including plea voluntary is and not any special that the parole the effect of term; apart promises or threats or of result of force also (2) represented plea agreement. shall by from The court if the is not a defendant willing- right inquire attorney, the defendant’s he has the as to whether to be guilty results attorney every plead or nolo contendere represented stage ness attorney and, prior between the proceeding against if from discussions neces- or his and the defendant sary, appointed represent one will for the be him; attorney. right plead that he has Accuracy (f) Determining Plea. Notwith- persist already or to if it made, guilty, acceptance standing right has the been by he be tried judgment such jury enter a right and at that trial has the should counsel, making inquiry right as shall such without the assistance of to con- satisfy for the is a basis against that there factual and cross-examine witnesses it front him, compelled right not to (f). 11(c), (d), himself; and Fed.R.Crim.P. incriminate meting Assistance Counsel is out is II. punishment Ineffective understood”) original). (emphasis in Fur- Downs-Morgan next contends that thermore, under neither 8 he was denied effective assistance of coun 1251(a)(ll) nor exclusion U.S.C. § deciding plead guilty. peti sel In his 1182(a)(23) “mandatory,” both U.S.C. § accompanying tion and sworn affidavit he being to the discretion of the matters left that, alleges specific in See, Johns De- general. attorney quiry, misinformed him that Justice, (5th partment of 653 F.2d would not result in his de Cir.1981). portation. misrepresentation, This accord considering All courts the vari ing Downs-Morgan, greatly affected his agree that it ous versions of Rule does plead guilty decision whether to because he judge apprise require the trial “certainly” imprisoned will many “for immigration possible defendant of the con years” “possibly” executed See United sequences guilty plea. Nicaragua.8 return to *The issue is one of Russell, (D.C.Cir. States v. 686 F.2d impression. first States, 1982); Garda-Trigo v. United (5th Cir.1982); Fruchtman v. “An accused who has not received Kenton, Cir. reasonably effective assistance from coun- 1976); Michel v. deciding sel in plead guilty cannot be (2d Cir.1974); Tafoya plea” bound because a 1972) (Alaska (construing 500 P.2d intelligently is “valid if made and vol- using precedent),7 similar rule federal untarily.” Wainwright, Wofford denied, 945, 1389, 410 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 35 1505, (11th Cir.1984) (per F.2d 1508 cu- (1973). L.Ed.2d 611 Ford, riam); see also Ford v. 681, 749 F.2d (11th Cir.1985); generally 683 Strick- undisputed We conclude that the facts in — Washington, land v. -, -, record U.S. Downs-Morgan’s allegations and 2052, 2064-65, 674, 104 S.Ct. do not 80 L.Ed.2d establish a violation of Rule 11. As States, result, (1984); Brady v. a 693 United we need not consider whether his 397 742, 1463, contentions warrant collateral relief for U.S. 90 S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d 747 that (1970).10 However, reason. guilty the fact that “a Joseph (S.D.N. Esperdy, F.Supp. 7. 267 492 did not submit an affidavit Y.1966), although addressing scope attorney corroborating from his the assertion in 11, by Fed.R.Crim.P. the court noted that his own affidavit it seemed that he was misled require judge explain “onerous” to counsel’s advice. At a collat least one court has stated consequences justifies eral that such a failure such as the dismissal. See Unit of de Santelises, 787, (2d portation. ed States v. 476 F.2d Id. at 494. 790 n. 3 Cir.1973). We are aware of no such rule in this circuit, however, at least where the defendant’s by Downs-Morgan An affidavit submitted affidavit is not contradicted the remainder of states: generally the record. See Matthews v. United [my] attorney I did inform ... that I could States, (5th Cir.1976), denied, F.2d 533 900 cert. go Nicaragua day back to I entered 1121, 1156, 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. 51 L.Ed.2d 571 my plea. replied they [He] would not (1977); States, (5th Bryan v. United 492 F.2d 775 Nicaragua send me back to and that we could Cir.1974) (en banc), denied, 1079, cert. 419 U.S. see about that later. 668, (1974). 95 S.Ct. 42 L.Ed.2d 674 regard language Record at 46. We do not “we could see about later” as a material complied 9. The fact the trial court with equivocation. guarantee Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 does not affidavit also states that the facts constitutionally is valid. See Fon- accompanying petition are true. Record 213, taine v. United 93 S.Ct. petition alleges at 46. The that he "would be 1461, curiam); (per 36 L.Ed.2d 169 Unit- persecuted Nicaragua,” if he returned to id. at 764, (5th Rumery, ed States v. F.2d 766 n. 1 deported Nicaragua, and that if he "is Cir.1983). recognized immediately upon will be arrival Nicaragua definitely imprisoned and will 10. We do not reach the issue whether an invol- many years possibly penalty untary and unintelligent guilty plea receive a based on the death necessarily for his implies anti-communist acts.” Id. at 43. advice of counsel plead guilty patently based on intelligently made not a client advice, plea [may erroneous ... ... be] requirement all advice offered United involuntary unknowing.” and lawyer retrospective defendant’s withstand Rumery, States v. (5th F.2d post-conviction hearing.” in a examination Cir.1983).11 Richardson, McMann rely Both parties involving on cases counsel’s inform accused of failure (1970). duty owes lesser “Counsel immigration consequences guilty to one pleads client who than who considering The courts whether such trial, in the former go decides and an ineffective omission constitutes assist only provide his case counsel need client ance of counsel are on divided the issue. understanding of the law rela- with Compare Wellington, Commonwealth v. facts, to the so that the accused tion Pa.Super. 451 A.2d 224-25 informed and make conscious (1982) (ineffective found) assistance Wofford, 748 F.2d State, at Edwards v. choice....” (3d 393 So.2d Fla.) (ineffective DCA assistance found un relief, denied, review To entitled collateral constitution), der state with (1981), “prove serious derelic So.2d 613 the accused must Santelises, (2d Cir.1975) 509 F.2d part on of counsel sufficient tions curiam) (no (per assistance) ineffective not, all, after that his show Santelises, Id., knowing intelligent act.” Tafoya Cir.1973) (2d (same) at at (Alaska 1972) P.2d see, Wainwright, Johnson denied, (same), curiam) (5th Cir.1972) (per (patently (1973). L.Ed.2d 611 former incorrect sentence advice maximum expressly Fifth deferred Circuit twenty years years fifteen rather than Immigration See Zinnanti v. question. plea involuntary did render Service, Naturalization uninformed). has induced When “counsel 1981) curiam).12 (per Cir. Unit A rule, however, (1982). does denied the assistance of This not neces- defendant was effective sarily dispose of the issue whether counsel’s counsel. apprise misrepresentation failure to to the requirement The that the advice which deportation 11. as to the defendant guilty plea "patently the is based be erroneous” plea and exclusion can render the constitution- holding distinguishes line of that a cases ally inadequate because of counsel’s ineffective competent, good faith 251; based on advice Tafoya, at Ed- See 500 P.2d assistance. which out to be incorrect is volun- later turns wards, 599; Wellington, So.2d at 451 A.2d at 393 See, tary intelligent. v. Tollett Hender- 335, 224-25; Sullivan, Cuyler v. 446 U.S. 100 cf. son, 258, 1602, S.Ct. 411 U.S. 93 36 L.Ed.2d 235 1708, (1980) (holding L.Ed.2d that S.Ct. 64 333 Carolina, 790, (1973); Parker v. North 397 inquire duty is under to into trial court no 1458, (1970); L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. 25 785 McMann notwithstanding representation, that conflicts in 759, 1441, Richardson, S.Ct. 25 v. 397 90 might give such conflicts rise to a claim (1970). L.Ed.2d 763 counsel). ineffective assistance of held that a defend Several other courts have A courts that the number of have held trial immigration ignorance of conse ant’s judge's inform defendant failure to guilty plea quences his does not constitute the immigration consequences guilty plea his withdrawing requisite injustice” "manifest plea constitutionally does not render the defi 32(d). See, e.g., under Fed.R.Crim.P. Santelises, See, e.g. cient. United States v. 476 States, 533 723 Cordero v. United F.2d Nunez 787, (2d Cir.1973); F.2d United States v. 789 Sambro, Cir.1976); (1st 454 Holton, 827, denied, Cir.), curiam). (D.C.Cir.1971)(per United In F.2d 918 963, 1027, L.Ed. 351 U.S. Russell, 35, (D.C.Cir. 40-42 554, Pearce, (1956); Lyons 298 Or. P.2d 1982), held the district court the court (en State, banc); Tafoya v. 973-76 denying the defendant’s abused its discretion in denied, (Alaska 1972), cert. 500 P.2d court, however, 32(d) express rule motion. The 410 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 35 L.Ed.2d 611 holding enter ly defendants who limited its Malik, (1973); Wash.App. State Alford, pleas North Carolina v. under (1984); P.2d Edwards v. (1970), who Fla.1981), (3d DCA So.2d nied, review de claim of inno have a colorable "otherwise (Fla.1981); Commonwealth So.2d Russell, n. 6. cence.” 686 F.2d at 40 Wellington, Pa.Super. 451 A.2d (D.C.Cir.1968)(per are with a ed 391 F.2d 984 In we not confronted this case merely curiam), considering which counsel failed to in constitutionality situation accused of certain collateral guilty plea inform the of a based on the defendant’s Instead, case this involves consequences. expectation deported that would be rath- specifical- allegation that defendant an term, prison er than sentenced a matter and received a ly inquired about approved court the district court’s denial of attorney. positive from his the accused’s section motion “because showing prose- there was no either federal only squarely The case address cution or counsel had validity guilty plea [the based on ing defendant’s] an any promise made misrepresentation by affirmative an ac [the defendant] deportation plea.” attorney that would ensue on his cused’s the defendant would Id. Briscoe, involved a motion to with at deported not be see also United States v. 32(d) (D.C.Cir.1970) (“Under draw the Fed.R.Crim.P. a claim of ineffective rather than assist appropriate fact circumstances the that a ance of counsel.13 In States v. defendant been misled as to con- [the] Cir.), Parrino, (2d 212 F.2d 919 cert. de sequence deportability may render his nied, 46, 99 L.Ed. 663 guilty plea subject attack.”). (1954), permit refused a de state decision of which we are though fendant to withdraw his even involving aware the constitutionality of a attorney had misinformed guilty plea misrep based on an affirmative subject deportation. would not How resentation counsel that the defendant ever, stated, as assistance ineffective deported would not be is in accord with the counsel was and the court did more People recent federal dicta. In it. address Correa, Ill.App.3d 668, 80 Ill.Dec. recently, however, More other federal (1984), 465 N.E.2d 507 the accused was suggested courts have affirmative incorrectly informed misrepresentation by counsel that the ac- would change his immi cused not be deported does consti- gration was a status because his wife Unit tute ineffective assistance of counsel and ed States held citizen. thus invalidates resultant unequivocally defense counsel has “[w]here Santelises, United States v. 509 F.2d 703 represented guilty] plea client that [a (2d Cir.1975) (per curiam), holding will not result failure counsel’s to inform the accused of patently defendant has relied er this immigration consequences deciding guilty, roneous plead advice plea did not establish ineffective assistance post-conviction per relief is appropriate counsel, Appeals the Court of for the anew____” plead mit the defendant Id. “[sjince Second Circuit reasoned that [de- 465 N.E.2d fense does not aver that he made counsel] We decline to hold that an affirmative misrepresentation, affirmative de- [the misrepresentation by attorney in to state re- fails a claim for ineffec- fendant] sponse specific tive of inquiry by assistance counsel.” Id. at the accused Santelises, plea also guilty necessarily United States v. 476 F.2d which results in a of 787, (2d Cir.1973). In Briscoe v. Unit- constitutes ineffective of coun- assistance disposed "possible” Other courts have of the the that issue defendant it was reasoning allega Pearce, that there was no evidence or deported. Lyons would be In v. Or. 554, tion that counsel was the (1985) banc), aware that defendant (en the 694 P.2d 969 State, Daley Md.App. was an alien. See attorney required noted that an is inform the 486, curiam); (Ct.Spec.1985) (per 487 A.2d 320 possibility deportation, defendant of the of id. at State, Proulx v. 422 So.2d 1096 DCA Fla. 977, but there was no ineffective assist- held that 1982); (1st Hahn 421 So.2d DCA ance of counsel because the trial court found as Fla.1982). Malik, Wash.App. In State v. adequately ap- a fact that the defendant was (1984), 680 P.2d 770 the court found no ineffec prised consequence deportation. Id. at tive assistance counsel the because evidence 977-78. attorney showed the that defense had informed Downs-Morgan’s allegation presenting an ineffective that if he was any case “In sel. claim, inquiry performance certainly imprisoned the deported would be assistance assistance was whether counsel’s many years possibly for and be executed considering all the circumstanc- reasonable Nicaraguan government may cru by the — -, Washington, U.S. at es.” the nature cial to informed at 694. at S.Ct. these Under circumstances not are exclusion deportation and harsh conse totality of the circumstances see, quences, DeGeorge, Jordan Downs- present case a close issue. in this 223, 243, 703, 714, 95 L.Ed. U.S. plea was guilty that his Morgan admits (Jackson, J., (1951) dissenting) accept part by in his desire to motivated exile”), (“life bargain Fong attor sentence of Haw Tan v. negotiated plea the thereby avoiding Phelan, ney, S.Ct. greater years. In addi (“the than five sentence equivalent L.Ed. explained tion, properly his counsel banishment”); White, Fung Ho v. Ng plea arrangement, the conditions of 66 L.Ed. that charges, the defenses nature (1922) (may result in the “loss of trial, at the and the have been raised would life; property or of all both that makes Also, possible jail term and fine. maximum living”), spectre of cer life worth but hearing Downs-Morgan plea at the stated imprisonment many pos years tain intellig voluntary was would, view, death our affect a sible (transcript at See Record ent.14 plead guilty at least as decision whether hearing). as, prospect example, much of an hand, advice On the other counsel’s year twenty-five additional sentence at is deported concerning he would be whether especially This is true Rumery. sue specific question Downs-Morgan when we consider Although the may have been erroneous. inno makes at least a colorable claim of correctly every need “not assess defendant hearing evidentiary Without an we cence. entering into factor his decision” relevant way knowing precisely no what the have at plead guilty, Brady, whether or, client for that mat advised his 25 L.Ed.2d at 90 S.Ct. at ter, at if he made statements important are so certain considerations result, to him. As a we conclude tributed counsel render misinformation from unique under circumstances these plea constitutionally uninformed. to an at least entitled is See, Maggio, e.g., Kennedy if he was evidentiary hearing to determine (5th Cir.1984) (patently erroneous reasonably effective assistance afforded available); penalty advice death plead deciding from counsel Rumery, guilty.15 (5th Cir.1983) (patently erroneous ad is judgment of the district court thirty prison maximum term was vice that case, case REMANDED years). rather than five this REVERSED years hearing lawyer incorrectly in- had 14. A defendant’s statement time of deported. intelligent formed him that he hearing is Rule that h'is voluntary dispositive, although it is not emphasize deci- We the narrowness of our gives presumption is rise We do not hold that district sion. constitutionally generally adequate. See Black any obligation the defendant to inform 63, 74-75, Allison, ledge consequences possible immigration or about (1977); Unit con- so affects the to do court’s failure Nuckols, ed States Cir.1979). sug- stitutionality Nor do we Downs-Morgan hearing, At the misrepresentation gest that an affirmative voluntary testified that his was specific inquiry about counsel representation. satisfied with his counsel's exclusion, was or with- arising Any presumptions state from these imprisonment and factors out execution, additional ments, however, Downs- are overcome because re- to warrant collateral is sufficient Morgan way knowing had at the time no lief. opin- acceptable guest. make him an It seems to with this consistent proceedings reception me also need to know what we ion. foreign have in would other NICHOLS, Judge, concur- Circuit Senior Nicaragua, example, countries than ring. immediately Cayman Islands whence he Judge appears immigration judge It scholarly opinion of came. join I in the agree Downs-Morgan ruled that the conviction makes Downs- Henderson hearing to de- evidentiary Morgan automatically should have and I excludable guilty plea resulted his whether termine present agrees suppose his counsel that no coun- of former ineffective assistance from further exhaustion administrative added comments are a few sel. I think required, remedies there is but we are appropriate. being instructed excludable whether go Nicaragua, means he must not some- According the statements of Downs- counsel, to some extent else. present where Morgan’s record, by the he was a resident supported hearing In the circumstances a until, Island, Nicaragua, in March of Corn if actu- facts is unavoidable. Even counsel country on account of he fled that ally Downs-Morgan states he said what the Sandinista falling out with said, may supposed he well have the matter consequences have he feared would which Downs-Morgan had was academic because Thereafter, health. he to his detrimental remaining anyway. chance of here no vessels, fishing mostly on off-shore worked hope remaining appears here one At time he Cayman Islands. some off the Downs-Morgan formed at a later date and Cayman Islands to was recruited at given us do not reflect he ever facts supposed on a vessel serve as crewman hope expressed such a before convic- Only Mexico. when at sea bound for legal tion. Whether the advice was so bad cargo marijuana. The learn the did he apply as to a constitutional taint to the by the United States vessel was boarded ensuing plea appears to me conviction Sarasota, off Flor- somewhere Coast Guard something assessed that can be ida, Key them into West. He and taken as to all light of full and clear information Miami, conspir- held at and indicted for these other matters. pled acy counts. He at first on two both, changed his but I that Downs-Mor- Should for one learn pursuant them guilty on one of Cayman Islands gan could return to the counsel, says Mr. bargain. He his then conviction, my impeach despite desire to him, Rosen, respecting possible immi- told giving constitutionally former counsel for gration consequences plea, inadequate much abated. advice would be “they not send him back to Nicara- would sentence, Downs-Morgan having served gua.” prosecution and the courts should yet not as or Mr. Rosen has corroborated required retry and could not be him, imputed or if denied this statement really, alleged, a matter of unless it is as it, he said he meant to be under- whether death, is, retrial really life or and if it saying Downs-Morgan could re- stood as remedy, as consti- inappropriate seems an something main in the United are. tutional remedies sometimes know, Nor, different. so far as I has the expectation in the opinion join I Immigration and Service Naturalization decision, the making further they confirmed that would or would not findings on as to able to act court will Downs-Morgan Nicaragua despite send facts. relevant all the there, danger to his life having voluntarily from that exiled himself

country long before his criminal involve-

ment, whether, peculiar in view of the Key

circumstance of his first arrival

West, erasure of the conviction

Case Details

Case Name: Derrick Downs-Morgan v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Jul 23, 1985

Citation: 765 F.2d 1534

Docket Number: 84-5549

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.