Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00336/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00336-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Angelo Atondo, 

Movant/Defendant, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent/Plaintiff

No. CV-15-00336-PHX-SRB(JZB)

 CR-11-00691-PHX-SRB 

ORDER 

 Movant Michael Angelo Antondo filed his Amended Motion Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 on June 11, 2015 seeking to vacate or set aside the sentence imposed by 

this Court. He argued two grounds for relief. Movant claimed that appellate counsel was 

ineffective by submitting an Anders brief that argued against his best arguments and that 

appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to argue for a downward departure for 

acceptance of responsibility. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and 

Recommendation recommending that that the motion be denied and further 

recommending the denial of a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. Movant filed timely written Objections. 

 1. Ground One 

 Movant’s counsel submitted an Anders brief to the appellate court and identified 

three potential issues but also explained why each issue was not meritorious. The Court 

of Appeals allowed and Movant subsequently filed a pro se supplemental brief. The 

Case 2:15-cv-00336-SRB Document 15 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum decision. United States v. Atondo, 552 F. 

App’x 622, 623 (9th Cir. 2013). In his Amended Motion, Movant claims that appellate 

counsel was ineffective because of the inclusion of the explanations as to why each 

potential appellate issue was not meritorious in the Anders brief. The Magistrate Judge 

found that Anders v. California, 366 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) requires counsel to advise the 

court that there are no non-frivolous issues on appeal, file a motion requesting 

permission to withdraw as counsel of record and file an opening brief raising anything in 

the record that might arguably support appeal. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 

486 U.S. 429, 443 (1988). The Magistrate Judge noted that including a discussion of the 

weaknesses of an argument in an Anders brief is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment. 

Movant’s Objection argues that appellate counsel was prejudicially ineffective because 

his brief went well beyond declaring the appeal frivolous and actively argued against 

relief on arguable claims. Movant claims in his Objections that the Anders brief as 

written led him to raise “truly frivolous arguments in his pro se supplement brief.” 

 The Court rejects Movant’s argument that the Anders brief somehow misled the 

Court of Appeals into error in not reviewing as potentially meritorious the three issues 

raised in the Anders brief. Moreover, Movant has failed to show prejudice in that he has 

failed to show that any relief would have been granted had counsel simply raised the 

issues as potential issues for appeal that counsel felt were non-meritorius and did not 

include the reasons why. In his Amended Motion, his Reply and in his Objections 

Movant fails to demonstrate that the likely result on appeal would have been different 

were the Anders brief different. 

 2. Ground Two 

 Movant argues that counsel was ineffective by failing to argue for a downward 

departure for acceptance of responsibility. As the Magistrate Judge notes, if this Court 

did not err in failing to award a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility then 

appellate counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to raise this meritless 

argument. The Magistrate Judge then reviewed the record in this Court and the standards 

Case 2:15-cv-00336-SRB Document 15 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

set out in U.S S.G. 3E1.1(a) and concluded that appellate counsel did not render 

ineffective assistance by failing to argue that Movant should have received a downward 

departure for acceptance of responsibility because he was not legally entitled to such a 

departure. 

 In the Objections Movant argues that the filing of an Anders brief on this issue 

was error because the acceptance of responsibility argument was not frivolous and that a 

reasonable probability exists that had this issue been raised the Court of Appeals would 

have granted relief. The Court notes that the issue was raised in the Anders brief. 

Movant’s counsel believed this issue was meritless. Movant agrees that an attorney 

cannot be ineffective for failing to appeal a meritless point and argues only that there was 

merit to the argument. But the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is the twoprong showing of deficient performance and prejudice. This Court cannot find that there 

was a reasonable probability that but for the failure of counsel to argue acceptance of 

responsibility in a merits brief on appeal that the result of the appeal proceeding would be 

different. Nothing in Movant’s papers convinces this Court that its conclusion that 

Movant was not entitled to a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility was 

error. This Court is still of the opinion expressed at sentencing that Movant’s letter to the 

Court wherein he admitted guilt was “as late as possible” and “half-hearted.”1

 This Court 

continues to interpret that letter as not an unequivocal acceptance of responsibility, but an 

admission that Movant committed the crime but blamed his conduct on other 

circumstances. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Movant has failed to 

show that if this issue had been raised in a merits brief and not just in an Anders brief the 

result of his appeal would have been different. Therefore Movant has failed to show 

prejudice for any arguable ineffective assistance of counsel. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Movant’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 

1

 The Court also notes that Movant’s pro se motion filed February 24, 2015 alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s alleged failure to investigate evidence that would have proved him innocent. 

Case 2:15-cv-00336-SRB Document 15 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 13) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Amended Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 is denied. (Doc. 9) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because Movant has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00336-SRB Document 15 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 4