Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01651/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01651-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1651

___________

Clara Sophie Loefer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2010

Filed: May 11, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Clara Sophie Loefer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a

controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846.

The district court1

 imposed a sentence of eighty-seven months' imprisonment after

applying a three-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline

§ 3B1.1(b) for Loefer's leadership role in the conspiracy. The factual basis for this

enhancement was contained in Loefer's presentence investigation report ("PSR"), to

Appellate Case: 09-1651 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258
2

The Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

-2-

which Loefer's prior counsel did not object. Loefer filed a direct appeal to our court

arguing that the district court relied on facts outside the record in making its

sentencing determination. We rejected Loefer's claim, finding that the uncontested

PSR stated that the drugs were primarily sold out of Loefer's house and that Loefer

had "some control" over members of the conspiracy. United States v. Loefer, 215 F.

App'x 567, 568 (8th Cir. 2007) (unpublished per curiam). This, we concluded,

rendered the district court's determination of Loefer's leadership role not clearly

erroneous. Id.

Loefer then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging

that her sentencing counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by not

objecting to the PSR. After a hearing, the district court adopted the recommendation

of the magistrate judge2

 and denied Loefer's motion, finding that sentencing counsel's

decision not to object was tactical and based upon sound trial strategy. The district

court granted Loefer's motion for a certificate of appealability. We review the district

court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States

v. Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851, 854–55 (8th Cir. 2006).

To maintain a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, Loefer must prove

that her prior counsel's performance was deficient and that she suffered prejudice as

a result of this deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

Because of the problems inherent in hindsight analysis, we "'indulge a strong

presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable

professional assistance.'" United States v. Staples, 410 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 2005)

(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). Accordingly, decisions involving trial strategy

are "virtually unchallengeable." Link v. Luebbers, 469 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir.

2006). Loefer argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel both at

Appellate Case: 09-1651 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258
-3-

sentencing and on direct appeal. We find that Loefer has failed to satisfy Strickland's

deficient-performance prong and therefore do not address the parties' arguments in

regard to prejudice. 

Loefer first claims that prior counsel was deficient for failing to object to the

PSR. We disagree. Prior counsel's testimony from the evidentiary hearing indicates

that his decision not to object to the relevant portions of the PSR was a well-reasoned,

tactical decision. Prior counsel testified that he was aware of the fact that his decision

not to make an objection to facts in the PSR would result in the court's acceptance of

those facts as true. However, after talking with his client and reviewing the relevant

evidence, he believed that the statements in the PSR were true. Further, he believed

that the case law supported the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Finally,

prior counsel testified that he believed making a meritless objection could risk losing

credibility with the district court and result in the Government calling witnesses to

prove Loefer's role in the conspiracy. These risks, he testified, outweighed any benefit

that could come from objecting to the PSR. After reviewing this testimony in light of

the record in this case, we are convinced that prior counsel's decision not to object to

the PSR was an objectively reasonable decision based on sound trial strategy.

Loefer also claims that prior counsel's arguments at sentencing and on appeal,

when viewed in light of prior counsel's decision not to object to the PSR, constituted

a contradictory, and therefore constitutionally deficient, trial strategy. Again, we

disagree. The record indicates that prior counsel made two arguments in regard to

sentencing after opting not to object to the PSR. First, he argued at sentencing that,

although the facts supported a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b),

the enhancement overstated Loefer's level of control in the conspiracy—an argument

for a lower overall sentence. Second, he argued at sentencing and on appeal that the

district court utilized facts outside of the record during sentencing. These arguments

are neither inconsistent with a decision not to object to the PSR nor do they render

prior counsel's performance constitutionally deficient. Given prior counsel's strategy

Appellate Case: 09-1651 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258
-4-

of avoiding the risks accompanying objection to the PSR, these arguments were

reasonable and part of a sound trial strategy.

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

_______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 09-1651 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258