Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02421/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02421-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2421

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa

Alejandro Cruz-Padilla, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2005

Filed: July 11, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Cruz-Padilla appeals from the final order entered in the District

Court1

 for the Northern District of Iowa denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. For

reversal, Cruz-Padilla argues the district court erred in not finding his counsel was

ineffective at sentencing for failing to move for a role reduction under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

Appellate Case: 04-2421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2005 Entry ID: 1926232
-2-

A district court’s decision on a habeas claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact. We review the legal issue de novo

and the underlying predicate facts for clear error. See Covey v. United States, 377

F.3d 903, 906 (8th Cir. 2004). 

To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Cruz-Padilla had to show that

counsel’s performance at sentencing was both objectively unreasonable and

prejudicial to his defense; establishing prejudice means showing that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-89, 694 (1984). We

conclude that Cruz-Padilla failed to show prejudice. Specifically, we agree with the

district court that the trial evidence indicated that Cruz-Padilla was not a minor or

minimal participant in the drug-conspiracy and drug-possession offenses of which the

jury found him guilty. Of note, Cruz-Padilla arrived at a controlled buy in a minivan

containing the requested amount of methamphetamine and the cell phone that had

been used to contact him about the buy; and officers found drugs, a large amount of

cash, and drug packaging materials at Cruz-Padilla’s residence. Cf. United States v.

Thurmon, 368 F.3d 848, 852 (8th Cir. 2004) (§ 3B1.2 role reduction was not

warranted where defendant escorted confidential informant to seller’s apartment to

purchase drugs and arranged for undercover agent to make drug purchase at

defendant’s residence); United States v. Brubaker, 362 F.3d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir.

2004) (defendant did not qualify for § 3B1.2 reduction because, inter alia, additional

quantities of methamphetamine--packaged in manner consistent with distribution--

were found in defendant’s apartment, and defendant admitted owning them). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2005 Entry ID: 1926232