Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03751/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Babatunde Nathaniel Beeks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3751

___________

Babatunde Nathaniel Beeks, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 18, 2004

Filed: June 25, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Babatunde Nathaniel Beeks of conspiracy to distribute crack

cocaine. We granted Beeks a new trial because of inappropriate cross-examination

of a witness. United States v. Beeks, 224 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2000). On remand,

Beeks pleaded guilty. At the second sentencing hearing, Beeks disputed whether he

was responsible for powder or crack cocaine. Beeks testified his only involvement

in the conspiracy was his delivery of nine ounces of powder cocaine. The district

court found the type of cocaine involved was crack as found in the presentence report.

Beeks appealed his sentence, but did not challenge the court’s finding that the cocaine

involved was crack. United States v. Beeks, 266 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2001) (per

Appellate Case: 03-3751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781298 
*

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

-2-

curiam). We affirmed Beeks’s sentence, holding his offense involved 2722 grams of

crack cocaine. Id. at 884.

Beeks then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting his appellate attorney

was ineffective for failing to argue Beeks’s involvement in the conspiracy was limited

to powder cocaine. The district court*

 denied the motion, concluding Beeks suffered

no prejudice from his attorney’s performance because the issue was raised at the

sentencing hearing and Beeks was allowed to testify about the type of drugs involved

in the conspiracy. The court noted that contrary to Beeks’s testimony that his

involvement in the conspiracy was limited to nine ounces of powder cocaine, the trial

testimony showed Beeks was involved in a much larger conspiracy involving crack

cocaine. See Beeks, 224 F.3d at 743 (summarizing testimony). Further, the court

noted the indictment to which Beeks pleaded guilty charged a conspiracy to distribute

cocaine base, Beeks admitted under oath that he understood the nature of the charge

against him, and the judgment of conviction identified the offense as conspiracy to

distribute cocaine base. The district court held that given the record and the trial

testimony, there was no reasonable probability that the results of the sentencing or

appeal would have been different if Beeks’s appellate attorney had argued Beeks’s

involvement in the conspiracy was limited to powder cocaine. Because Beeks

suffered no prejudice as a result of his appellate attorney’s failure to make the powder

cocaine argument, the district court denied Beeks’s § 2255 motion.

To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Beeks had to show

that his attorney’s performance was defective and that the defective performance

prejudiced his defense. Lindsey v. United States, 310 F.3d 606, 607 (8th Cir. 2002).

To establish prejudice, Beeks had to show the result of the proceeding would have

been different but for his attorney’s errors. Id. Beeks contends that if his attorney

Appellate Case: 03-3751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781298 
-3-

had asserted the conspiracy only involved powder cocaine, Beeks would have been

sentenced only for powder cocaine and thus would have received a lesser sentence.

We agree with the district court that even if Beeks’s attorney had raised the issue,

there was not a reasonable probability that he would have prevailed. 

Beeks contends the district court’s conclusion is wrong because the court

simply relied on the presentence report to decide the powder versus crack issue and

because the court erroneously believed it was bound by its own earlier finding on the

proper drug type. We disagree with Beeks about the grounds for the district court’s

decision. As our earlier explanation makes clear, the district court relied on trial

testimony in concluding Beeks’s involvement in the conspiracy included crack

cocaine. See Beeks, 224 F.3d at 743 (recounting witnesses’ testimony that Beeks sold

them crack cocaine). The sentencing court could properly look to the record of the

case as a whole including testimony from the trial over which it had presided. United

States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 678 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Because Beeks was not prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to raise the crack

versus powder cocaine issue, we affirm the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3751 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781298