Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03536/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03536-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thongmy Thammavong
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3536

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Thongmy Thammavong, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2004

Filed: August 5, 2004

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Thongmy Thammavong appeals the district court's1

 denial of his

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

based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree with the district court

that Thammavong failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness as required by Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668 (1984), and we therefore affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796310 
-2-

I.

On March 24, 2000, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Iowa

returned a one count indictment against Thammavong and his co-conspirator, Minh

Van Nguyen, charging both men with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. Pursuant to a noncooperation plea agreement, Thammavong pleaded guilty to this single count on

January 16, 2001, and was sentenced on April 3, 2001. The presentence report

recommended a two-level adjustment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

for possession of a firearm in connection with the charged offense, USSG

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), which would have disqualified Thammavong from eligibility for the

so-called "safety valve" provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The safety valve provision

permits a district court to sentence a defendant without regard to the statutory

minimum sentence that otherwise would apply, so long as certain conditions are met.

These conditions include a requirement that the defendant provide the government

with "all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or

offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or

plan," 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5), and that the defendant did not possess a firearm in

connection with the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2). In this case, satisfaction of the

safety valve criteria also would have resulted in a two-level reduction in

Thammavong's offense level under the sentencing guidelines, USSG § 2D1.1(b)(6),

and a sentencing range of 108 to 135 months, rather than 135 to 168 months.

At the time of sentencing, the government acceded to Thammavong's position

that the court should not assess a two-level adjustment for possession of a firearm

under § 2D1.1(b)(1). As a result, Thammavong was potentially eligible for the safety

valve reduction if he participated in an interview designed to satisfy the requirements

of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). However, after discussing the matter with Thammavong,

his counsel did not request a continuance to allow Thammavong to participate in such

an interview. Counsel made this decision because he believed that Thammavong

Appellate Case: 03-3536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796310 
-3-

could receive a reduction of sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

35(b) in connection with a separate, but related, criminal investigation in California.

Rule 35(b) provides that the government may move for a reduction in sentence for a

defendant who has been sentenced, if the defendant has "provided substantial

assistance in investigating and prosecuting another person." Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b)(1).

Counsel believed that any reduction that Thammavong might receive at sentencing

under the safety valve provision would be achieved through a later reduction under

Rule 35(b), so there was no need to pursue both routes.

The district court sentenced Thammavong to 123 months imprisonment, after

departing downward from the applicable guideline range of 135 to 168 months.

Thereafter, for reasons that are not explained entirely in the record, authorities did not

pursue the California investigation, and never requested Thammavong's assistance

in that case. As a result, the government did not move to reduce Thammavong's

sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). Thammavong later brought a motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his counsel's failure to request a continuance in order to

pursue safety-valve eligibility amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel under

Strickland. The district court denied Thammavong's motion, but granted a certificate

of appealability on that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

II.

To obtain relief based on a deprivation of the right to effective assistance of

counsel, Thammavong must prove two elements of the claim. First, he "must show

that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made

errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the

defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. In considering

whether this showing has been accomplished, "[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's

performance must be highly deferential." Id. at 689. We seek to "eliminate the

distorting effects of hindsight" by examining counsel's performance from counsel's

Appellate Case: 03-3536 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796310 
-4-

perspective at the time of the alleged error. Id. Second, Thammavong "must show

that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Id. at 687. This requires him

to demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors,

the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694.

The district court found that Thammavong had proven the prejudice prong,

because there was a reasonable probability that Thammavong's sentence would have

been different if he had moved to continue sentencing and provided the requisite

information to the government in an interview. The court found that the deficient

performance prong had not been met, however, because Thammavong's counsel

reasonably believed that Thammavong would have an opportunity to obtain a

reduction in sentence pursuant to a Rule 35(b) motion. We review de novo the

district court's legal conclusions, but review its underlying findings of fact for clear

error. United States v. White, 341 F.3d 673, 677 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124

S.Ct. 1701 (2004).

Thammavong argues that his counsel should have taken action to ensure that

Thammavong had an opportunity to pursue both the safety valve reduction and a Rule

35(b) motion. In explaining his strategy, counsel testified that he had been informed

by the government that there was a "great likelihood" Thammavong would be able

to assist in the California investigation, and that Thammavong's sentence would be

reduced as a result. Counsel further explained that he believed the information

Thammavong had to offer "would all come out in the process of the California

investigation. In other words, the two-level decrease that could come with the safety

valve would come out in the wash as a way of speaking." He went on to say that he

advised Thammavong that he "had a very good chance of getting a reduction in his

sentence under Rule 35(b), and that would take into consideration any safety valve

issues or take the issue away in a sense."

Appellate Case: 03-3536 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796310 
-5-

Like the district court, we conclude that counsel's representation did not fall

below an "objective standard of reasonableness." See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88.

Counsel's first task was to judge whether the government's prediction regarding the

California investigation and possible Rule 35(b) motion was accurate and reliable.

Counsel had discussed the matter with the prosecuting attorney, who advised that

future cooperation was likely. The Assistant United States Attorney also assured

counsel that he would arrange for an investigator to make contact with Thammavong

and California authorities immediately after sentencing, so that Thammavong could

continue his cooperation. Even Thammavong now concedes that there was no way

his counsel could have expected that authorities eventually would decline to seek

Thammavong's cooperation in connection with the California investigation. We thus

believe it was reasonable for counsel to conclude that there was a good chance that

Thammavong would be in a position to earn a Rule 35(b) motion through cooperation

in California.

As for Thammavong's argument that a reasonable attorney nonetheless would

have pursued both the safety valve interview and the Rule 35(b) motion, we believe

this contention fails to recognize that the safety valve interview process is not free of

risk. Counsel was aware that while Thammavong was willing to testify concerning

subjects of the investigation in California, he had been reluctant to provide

information to law enforcement concerning his criminal activity in Iowa.

Thammavong feared retribution from his co-defendant in the Iowa case (who was a

fugitive), and Thammavong's attorney never knew whether his client truly was

willing to provide complete information to law enforcement about subjects in Iowa.

In determining whether to pursue the safety valve interview, counsel was

required to consider the likelihood that Thammavong would complete a successful

interview. The risks were not insubstantial. If Thammavong withheld information

or made untruthful statements about his Iowa co-conspirators during a safety valve

interview, then his credibility would be damaged. The government's enthusiasm for

Appellate Case: 03-3536 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796310 
-6-

accepting his cooperation in the California investigation, and his value as a potential

witness in that investigation, would likely be diminished. The Rule 35(b) motion,

moreover, promised potentially much greater benefit than a two-level reduction under

USSG § 2D1.1(b)(6), because a government motion under Rule 35(b) authorizes the

court to reduce the defendant's sentence below both the statutory minimum sentence

and the applicable sentencing guideline range. Thus, by foregoing the safety valve

interview, and arranging for Thammavong's first interview with law enforcement to

address the California matters about which he was eager to share information, counsel

reasonably pursued a strategy designed to reduce risk and maximize potential benefit.

While the stagnation of the California investigation renders the decision questionable

in hindsight, we cannot find that the advice was objectively unreasonable when

evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time.

We agree with the district court that Thammavong has not overcome the

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

professional assistance." Strickland, 487 U.S. at 689. Accordingly, we need not

consider whether the record shows a reasonable probability that Thammavong would

have provided a successful safety valve interview, such that he was prejudiced by

counsel's advice to forego the interview. The judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3536 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796310