Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01075/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01075-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1075

___________

Gregory Nichols, *

*

Petitioner – Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent – Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2007

Filed: January 28, 2008

___________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Nichols appeals a final order of the district court1

 denying his motion

to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his § 2255

motion, Nichols claimed ineffective assistance of counsel as it related to the

imposition of his federal sentence. Specifically, Nichols argued his counsel did not

explain to him the option of seeking safety valve relief under U.S. Sentencing

Guideline § 5C1.2. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1075 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2008 Entry ID: 3395829
2

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the verdict. United States v. Ghant, 339 F.3d 660

(8th Cir. 2003).

3

The document was not filed by the clerk until April 21, 2005. 

-2-

I

Nichols was indicted on February 8, 2000. On February 16, 2002, a jury found

him guilty of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The record shows Nichols testified and maintained his innocence

throughout the trial. On August 15, 2002, the district court sentenced Nichols to the

statutory minimum of 120 months in prison. 

During the sentencing hearing, the district court gave Nichols a tentative

sentence and granted him a week to persuade the court it could give Nichols a

sentence below the statutory minimum. Nichols's trial counsel neither met with

Nichols during that time nor submitted a brief to the court. 

Counsel explains he did not submit a brief on the issue of safety valve relief

because, since Nichols was claiming innocence and appealing his conviction,2

 Nichols

could not become eligible for such relief. If Nichols did admit guilt and cooperate

post-trial, the government admits it would have charged him with perjury. 

On June 10, 2004, Nichols submitted a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.3

 The motion alleged counsel was ineffective in

representing him at sentencing for "failing to move for a reduction in his base offense

level under 5C1.2 on the basis that he met the criteria of safety valve" and for "failing

to advise him that he could be eligible for a sentence reduction because a mandatory

ten (10) year minimum will not apply for a defendant who met the criteria for a safety

Appellate Case: 07-1075 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2008 Entry ID: 3395829
-3-

valve - 5C1.2." On November 4, 2005, the district court denied Nichols's motion.

The court correctly held Nichols did not meet the requirement of the "safety valve"

because he had not provided the government any information relevant to the crime.

On March 16, 2006, Nichols filed a motion to reconsider, which the district

court treated as a Rule 60(b) motion based upon judicial inadvertence or judicial

mistake. Nichols alleged the district court overlooked his argument that trial counsel

should have explained the benefits of the safety valve provision before trial, and

argued it would have altered Nichols's defensive strategy. The district court denied

the motion, but issued a certificate of appealability as to the following issue:

Whether the district court erred in denying Nichols' Motion to Vacate,

Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for ineffective

assistance of counsel claim in light of trial counsel[’s] (1) failure to

educate Nichols of the safety valve provision of 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. §

3553(f) before the sentencing hearing and (2) failure to meet with

Nichols after the court decided to "keep the record open" for one week

for trial counsel [] to brief on whether a sentence could be imposed

below the mandatory minimum.

Counsel's declaration states he talked to Nichols before sentencing and Nichols

told him he would appeal his conviction and would not make any inculpatory

statements, since they could be used against him in a retrial. The district court's

November 4, 2005, Order, which initially denied the § 2255 motion, cites an affidavit

from counsel – including time records – showing counsel and an investigator met with

Nichols on September 14, 2001, to discuss a possible plea to misprision of a felony;

Nichols decided instead to go to trial. The government submitted a copy of the plea

agreement it faxed to counsel on September 11, 2001, which also corroborates

counsel's statement that he met with petitioner to discuss this option.

On appeal, Nichols again contends his counsel performed deficiently and

prejudiced his case by not informing him of the benefits of safety valve relief. The

Appellate Case: 07-1075 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/28/2008 Entry ID: 3395829
-4-

government counters Nichols’s trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to

request a reduction Nichols was not qualified to receive. The government further

states it would have charged Nichols with perjury had he attempted to qualify for

safety valve relief post-trial by admitting guilt.

II

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed de novo and a district

court’s findings of underlying predicate facts are reviewed under the clearly erroneous

standard. Reed v. United States, 106 F.3d 231, 236 (8th Cir. 1997). To prevail on a

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show constitutionally

deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687 (1984). Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential

and the court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the

wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689. A petitioner is entitled

to an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion unless "the motion and the files and the

records of the case conclusively show that [he] is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255.

The record shows Nichols has never admitted he is guilty of the drug charges

and declined to enter into a plea agreement with the government. There is no support

for the conclusion that Nichols's counsel was constitutionally deficient or that Nichols

was prejudiced by his defense. We find the record conclusively shows Nichols is not

entitled to relief.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1075 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/28/2008 Entry ID: 3395829