Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-06-03059/USCOURTS-caDC-06-03059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sealed Case

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 8, 2008 Decided May 30, 2008 

No. 02-3008 

IN RE: SEALED CASE

______ 

Consolidated with 06-3059 

______ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 96cr00053-01) 

______ 

Neil H. Jaffee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued 

the cause for appellant. 

John P. Gidez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause 

for appellee. 

Before: TATEL, BROWN, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit 

Judges. 

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. 

PER CURIAM: After pleading guilty to a two-count 

indictment charging him with distribution of more than 50 

grams of cocaine base and carrying a pistol without a license, 

appellant received a 262-month sentence, which was at the 

bottom of the guideline range given appellant’s status as a 

USCA Case #06-3059 Document #1118764 Filed: 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 4
2 

“career offender.” See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES 

MANUAL § 4B1.1 (1997). After the sentencing hearing, 

appellant met briefly with his attorney in the lock-up behind 

the courtroom. During the meeting, defense counsel recalled, 

“I told him of his right to appeal in 10 days. But I also told 

him that at this point I don’t see any issues with regard to an 

appeal because everything was according to sentencing 

guidelines. But he need[ed] to contact me in order for me to 

notice his appeal.” Hr’g Tr. at 20 (Oct. 14, 2003). When 

asked how his client responded, the attorney said, “He wasn’t 

responding. He was really disappointed at that point because 

of the substantial sentence that he received. And at that point, 

I told him to contact me if he wanted to appeal and I left.” Id. 

According to the attorney, the meeting “was really fast. It 

was probably perhaps two to three minutes I talked to him. I 

believe the judge had another matter, so I didn’t want to take 

too much time.” Id. at 22. Appellant made no contact with 

counsel during the ten-day window, and counsel never filed a 

direct appeal of the sentence. 

Appellant challenged his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance 

by failing to file a notice of appeal after sentencing. See 

generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) 

(setting standard for judging claims of ineffective assistance). 

Specifically, appellant asserts that his attorney failed 

adequately to consult with him regarding his appeal, as 

contemplated by Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000). 

Although we agree with appellant that the brief postsentencing conversation was insufficient to constitute a 

consultation as that term is defined in Flores-Ortega, id. at 

478, we nonetheless affirm the district court’s decision to 

deny appellant’s section 2255 motion because no 

nonfrivolous grounds for appeal existed. 

USCA Case #06-3059 Document #1118764 Filed: 05/30/2008 Page 2 of 4
3 

Under Flores-Ortega, when a defendant “neither instructs 

counsel to file an appeal nor asks that an appeal not be taken,” 

as was the case here, we ask “whether counsel in fact 

consulted with the defendant about an appeal.” Id. 

According to the Court, the term “consult” has a particular 

meaning: “advising the defendant about the advantages and 

disadvantages of taking an appeal, and making a reasonable 

effort to discover the defendant’s wishes.” Id. Here, whether 

or not defense counsel adequately advised appellant about the 

relative advantages and disadvantages of appealing, he made 

no effort to discover his client’s wishes regarding an appeal. 

According to the credited testimony, appellant was distraught 

over his sentence and essentially nonresponsive. “[A]t that 

point,” the lawyer recalled, “I told him to contact me if he 

wanted to appeal and I left.” Hr’g Tr. at 20. The lawyer 

made no additional attempt “to discover the defendant’s 

wishes” within the ten-day time limit. Flores-Ortega, 528 

U.S. at 478. On these facts, we conclude that defense counsel 

failed to consult under Flores-Ortega. 

Failure to consult does not end the matter, however, for 

in Flores-Ortega the Court expressly “reject[ed] a bright-line 

rule that counsel must always consult with the defendant 

regarding an appeal.” Id. at 480. Instead, the Court explained 

that counsel’s constitutional duty to consult arises only “when 

there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant 

would want to appeal (for example, because there are 

nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular 

defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was 

interested in appealing.” Id.

Appellant argues that a nonfrivolous ground for appeal 

existed: counsel could have argued that he was entitled to a 

lower sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines section 

4A1.3, which allows courts to make downward departures 

USCA Case #06-3059 Document #1118764 Filed: 05/30/2008 Page 3 of 4
4 

from the applicable guideline range when a defendant’s 

criminal history category substantially overrepresents the 

seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history. U.S.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 4A1.3. We agree with 

the government that this would have been a frivolous ground 

for appeal. “[D]eparture under § 4A1.3 is only justified in the 

rare and unusual case in which a defendant’s criminal history 

category significantly overrepresents the seriousness of his 

past conduct and future threat to society.” United States v. 

Beckham, 968 F.2d 47, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In light of 

appellant’s criminal history, and given that he committed one 

of the instant offenses while still on parole from one of his 

previous felony convictions, there is nothing rare or unusual 

about this case, and we cannot say that counsel’s failure to 

request a departure constituted deficient performance. See 

United States v. Johnson, 98 F. App’x 5, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 

(per curiam). 

Having considered appellant’s other arguments and found 

them without merit, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #06-3059 Document #1118764 Filed: 05/30/2008 Page 4 of 4