Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03837/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03837-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3837

___________________________

Juan Carlos Arteaga Talavera

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: September 22, 2016

Filed: November 2, 2016

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Juan Carlos Arteaga Talavera of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine, seven counts of distributing methamphetamine, and one count of

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)-(C), and 846. Arteaga appealed his 292-month sentence;

we affirmed. United States v. Arteaga Talavera, No. 12-3802 (8th Cir. July 2, 2013)

(unpublished). In 2014, Arteaga filed this motion for post-conviction relief under 28

Appellate Case: 15-3837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Entry ID: 4465476 
U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that he would have entered into a plea agreement with the

government and received a lesser sentence had trial counsel provided proper

information and advice prior to trial. After an evidentiary hearing at which Arteaga

and trial counsel William Eddy testified, Arteaga focused the claim on his contention

that Eddy provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly explain Arteaga’s

opportunity to obtain “safety valve” sentencing relief, and that, with an accurate

explanation, he would have pleaded guilty and received a lesser sentence. 

1

To prevail on this claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Arteaga must

“show that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance

prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The

district court denied relief, concluding that Arteaga failed to establish that counsel’s 2

alleged ineffective assistance resulted in Strickland prejudice because Arteaga “failed

to establish that he would have truthfully provided the government with all the

information and evidence he had regarding the offense” either before or after trial, as

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5) require. Arteaga appealed. The 3

To qualify for safety valve relief, a defendant must prove (1) he “does not have 1

more than 1 criminal history point;” (2) he “did not use violence or credible threats

of violence . . . in connection with the offense;” (3) “the offense did not result in

death or serious bodily injury to any person;” (4) he “was not an organizer, leader,

manager, or supervisor of others in the offense;” and (5) he “has truthfully provided

to the Government all information and evidence [he] has concerning the offense or

offenses. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). 

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

2

Southern District of Iowa, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District

of Iowa. 

Having determined that Arteaga failed to establish prejudice, the district court

3

did not need to decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient. Strickland, 466

U.S. at 697. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Entry ID: 4465476 
district court granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether Arteaga “was

prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficient advice regarding obtaining a sentence . . . under

the so-called ‘safety valve.’” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c); 2255(d). Reviewing the

district court’s safety valve findings for clear error, United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,

412 F.3d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1121 (2006), and

the ultimate issue of Strickland prejudice de novo, Rodela-Aguilar v. United States,

596 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir. 2010), we affirm.

The hearing record included a written Plea Agreement the Government

proposed to Arteaga in February 2012, six months before trial. The Agreement

provided that he would plead guilty to the conspiracy count, and the government

would dismiss the eight other counts, resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of

ten years and a maximum sentence of life in prison. The proposed Agreement recited

a factual basis for the guilty plea and stipulated that Arteaga was responsible for at

least 1,498 grams of actual methamphetamine and that neither party recommended

a sentencing adjustment for his role in the offense. In a cover letter to defense

counsel Eddy, the prosecutor stated her belief that the Agreement would result in an

advisory guidelines sentencing range of 135 to 168 months in prison or, if Arteaga

“is interested in proffering” and the safety valve applies, 108 to 135 months. 

At the hearing, Eddy testified that he brought the proposed Plea Agreement to

Arteaga, and a translator read it to him in Spanish. They discussed the Plea

Agreement, and Eddywrote Arteaga, strongly urging himto accept it. Eddy reviewed

with Arteaga the evidence the government had produced in discovery, stated his

belief that Arteaga would be convicted, and warned that the ten-year mandatory

minimum sentence “would likely double or more” if Arteaga rejected the Plea

Agreement and was convicted after a trial. Despite this advice, Arteaga maintained

his innocence, refused to accept the Plea Agreement or cooperate with the

government, and stated he would proceed to trial. Eddy’s meeting notes corroborated

this testimony. The record also reflects that, three days before trial, the court held a

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3837 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Entry ID: 4465476 
hearing to ensure that Arteaga understood the government’s plea offer. At that

hearing, Arteaga confirmed that Eddy had relayed the offered Agreement, that

Arteaga understood its terms, and that he rejected the offer and would proceed to trial. 

During direct examination, Eddy testified that he advised Arteaga that he could

get a sentence below the ten-year mandatoryminimumonly if he provided substantial

assistance to the prosecution. On cross exam, Arteaga’s counsel focused on safety

valve relief, which entitles an eligible defendant to a guidelines range sentence

“without regard to any statutory minimum sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Eddy

testified it was his understanding at the time that, to satisfy the requirement of

§ 3553(f)(5), a safety valve proffer “has to reach the level of a substantial assistancetype cooperation,” which includes testifying against co-defendants. Based on this

testimony, and Arteaga’s testimony that he refused the government’s Plea Agreement

because he did not want to cooperate, Arteaga argues that Eddy’s mistaken advice

that a safety valve proffer required full cooperation with the government, rather than

merely truthful information about Arteaga’s offense, was ineffective assistance that

prejudiced Arteaga by causing him to reject the plea offer and proceed to trial.

“When the defendant’s claim is that counsel misadvised him of the relative

advantages of pleading guilty rather than proceeding to trial, in order to show

[Strickland] prejudice, the defendant must show that, but for his counsel’s advice, he

would have accepted the plea.” Sanders v. United States, 341 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir.

2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1199 (2004). Here, Arteaga introduced no evidence

meeting this rigorous standard. He steadfastly maintained his innocence before and

during trial, and at sentencing. At the § 2255 hearing, as the district court found, he

did not “testify that had he been adequately advised about the benefits of the safety

valve he would have accepted the plea agreement.” “A defendant who maintains his

innocence at all the stages of his criminal prosecution and shows no indication that

he would be willing to admit his guilt undermines his later § 2255 claim that he

would have pleaded guilty if only he had received better advice from his lawyer.” 

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3837 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Entry ID: 4465476 
Sanders, 341 F.3d at 723. Thus, as in Hyles v. United States, “[n]othing in the record

indicates [Arteaga] wanted to accept the plea offer and would have acknowledged

[his] guilt” if properly advised about the safety valve. 754 F.3d 530, 535 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 392 (2014). 

Moreover, to show prejudice, a defendant who asserts that counsel was

constitutionally ineffective for erroneous advice about the safety valve has “the

burden to show affirmatively that [he has] satisfied each requirement for the safety

valve, including whether truthful information and evidence have been given to the

government.” Alvarado-Rivera, 412 F.3d at 947. A defendant merely stating that he

would have provided truthful information is not sufficient. See Deltoro-Aguilera v.

United States, 625 F.3d 434, 438 (8th Cir. 2010). Here, as the district court found,

Arteaga “did not testify asto what information he would have been willing to disclose

at a [safety valve] proffer.” Indeed, he did not even testify that he would have been

willing to proffer at all. 

A truthful proffer would have required Arteaga to acknowledge his role in the

conspiracy offense and provide information about his co-conspirators. See United

States v. Sanchez, 475 F.3d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 2007). He testified at the § 2255

hearing that he repeatedly told Eddy he was not guilty, did not know his codefendants or knew them only casually, and would not cooperate against them. On

this record, the district court did not clearly err in finding no showing that Arteaga

would have provided the government all the information he had regarding the

extensive conspiracy offense. Thus, Arteaga failed to establish Strickland prejudice

regarding the claim that ineffective assistance caused him not to plead guilty.

Finally, Arteaga argues on appeal that, even if he would not have pleaded

guilty, Eddy still had a duty to pursue the safety valve after the jury verdict because

“safety valve relief is available even to a defendant that foregoes a plea of guilty and

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3837 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Entry ID: 4465476 
is found guilty by a jury.” While the legal proposition is sound, Arteaga’s § 2255 4

motion and the evidence introduced at the § 2255 evidentiary hearing focused entirely

on the claim that he would have pleaded guilty before trial if properly advised about

the safety valve. Thus, neither Arteaga nor counsel Eddy testified to whether the

safety valve was discussed at or before sentencing, and whether Arteaga would have

been willing to attempt a qualifying proffer at that time. This belated claim fails for

lack of proof. 

Moreover, the claim is inherently implausible on this record. There is not a

shred of evidence that Arteaga would have been willing before sentencing to

truthfully provide all information he had about a conspiracy offense he denied

committing. In addition, atsentencing, the district court imposed a two-level increase

for obstruction of justice based on Arteaga’s pretrial threat of physical harm directed

at a co-defendant who testified for the government at Arteaga’s trial. A defendant

who receives an obstruction of justice enhancement for threatening a cooperating

witnessis not eligible for safety valve relief because he has used “violence or credible

threats of violence . . . in connection with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(2);

United States v. Sandoval-Sianuqui, 632 F.3d 438, 443 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 132

S. Ct. 240 (2011). 

The Order of the district court dated October 14, 2015 is affirmed. 

______________________________

By qualifying for safety valve relief at sentencing, Arteaga would have 4

decreased his base offense level by two levels. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16) (2012). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3837 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Entry ID: 4465476