Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03314/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey B. Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3314

___________

Jeffrey B. Austin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2007

Filed: December 13, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Austin is serving a federal sentence of 108 months in prison imposed

after he was convicted of being a felon and unlawful user of controlled substances in

possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (3) and 924(a)(2).

After affirmance on direct appeal, see United States v. Austin, 98 Fed. Appx. 573 (8th

Cir. 2004) (unpublished per curiam), Austin filed the instant proceeding under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that his waiver during his sentencing hearing of a fact issue

underlying a Guidelines offense-level calculation was not voluntary, and that his

counsel was relatedly ineffective for relieving the government of its burden of proof

in exchange for a recommendation of a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines

Appellate Case: 06-3314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381888
1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

range. The district court1

 denied relief, but granted a certificate of appealability

(COA) on these issues. Following careful review, we agree with the district court that

the record does not support Austin’s contention that his waiver was involuntary--

although it is questionable whether voluntariness is relevant, see New York v. Hill,

528 U.S. 110, 114-15 (2000) (for certain fundamental rights, defendant must

personally make informed waiver, but waiver may be effected by action of counsel as

to trial decisions, such as what evidentiary objections to raise, and defendant is

deemed bound by acts of counsel). We also agree that Austin failed to establish

prejudice or deficient performance by his counsel. See Rodriguez v. United States,

17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for failing to

raise meritless challenge).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Austin’s motion to expand the

COA is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381888