Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-03011/USCOURTS-caDC-15-03011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Yahya Ali Zaitar
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15-3011 September Term, 2015

FILED ON: DECEMBER 22, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

YAHYA ALI ZAITAR, ALSO KNOWN AS ABU RABIH, ALSO KNOWN AS YEHYA ALI DAOUD 

ZEITER,

APPELLANT

Consolidated with 15-3012

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:07-cr-00329-RMC)

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, MILLETT, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia was presented to the court and briefed and argued by counsel. The court has 

accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a 

published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be 

affirmed.

Appellant Yahya Ali Zaitar seeks reversal of the District Court’s order denying 

his application to withdraw his guilty plea. Zaitar contends that his plea was involuntary

because his attorneys promised him a below-Guidelines sentence, which he did not 

ultimately receive. 

The District Court correctly rejected Zaitar’s claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. The Supreme Court has held that “the two-part Strickland v. Washington test 

applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hill v. 

USCA Case #15-3011 Document #1589910 Filed: 12/22/2015 Page 1 of 2
No. 15-3011

Page 2

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). To satisfy this test, the defendant 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). Even assuming arguendo

that there was any deficiency in counsel’s performance, Zaitar has not satisfied 

Strickland’s prejudice requirement because he has not shown “that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would 

have insisted on going to trial.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. Any notion entertained by Zaitar 

that a particular sentence or sentencing range was guaranteed “should have evaporated 

during the rule 11 colloquy.” United States v. Farley, 72 F.3d 158, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

At the colloquy, the District Court confirmed that Zaitar had not received any promises, 

explained that the court was not bound by the parties’ stipulated Guidelines range, and 

warned Zaitar that he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the sentence “turns out to be 

more harsh than you hope.” Supplemental Appendix 44. In addition, given the charges 

that Zaitar would have faced had he gone to trial, and his counsel’s judgment (undisputed 

here) that his defense was “awful,” Joint Appendix 112, trial likely would have led to a 

sentence longer, and perhaps considerably longer, than the one Zaitar ultimately received. 

Under these circumstances, we conclude that Zaitar has failed to make the required 

showing of prejudice. See In re Sealed Case, 488 F.3d 1011, 1016-19 (D.C. Cir. 2007);

United States v. Hanson, 339 F.3d 983, 990-92 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this court, this disposition will not be published. The 

Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the 

disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See 

FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-3011 Document #1589910 Filed: 12/22/2015 Page 2 of 2