2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-10-2005 

# U S A v . J ohnson
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 03-3375

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . J o hn s on " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1458. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1458NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT
No. 03-3375
UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. KENNET H J OHNSON, Appellant
On Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (D.C. No. 97-c r-00241- 1) District J udg e: Honora

ble Clarenc e C. New comer
Argued Mar ch 8, 2005 B e fo re : SCI RI CA , RO TH , a nd VA N A NT WERPEN, Cir c uit

Judg e s. (F iled Marc h 10, 2005)

______ OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T

VAN AN TWERP EN, Circuit J udg e. Ke n n et h J o hnson challeng es a July 31, 2003 order

of the District Court deny ing a writ of fede ral habea s corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court ha d sub j ec t m att er jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12911. Pe tit ion e r’ s und e rl yingc onvic tio n w a s f or ro bb e ry and re late d w e a

po ns c ha rg e s. Th is Court has previously

revie wed a

nd aff irmed that convic tion. United States v. J ohnson, 199 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1998). 2 and, pursua

nt to a cer tificate of appea lability

issued by this Court, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 and 2255. For the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e wi ll a ff

ir m. 1 I. After this Court upheld J ohnson’s conviction and se ntence on direc t ap p eal, 199 F .3d 123 (3d Cir. 1998) , he filed a writ of habea s corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 allegin g i n eff ective assistance of counse l claims. Relevant here is his claim that his attorney failed to c onvey

a plea offe r
ma de by the g ov e rnme nt. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

he ld a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng , fo un d John so n’ s c la ims to b e wi tho ut m e ri t, and denie d the writ. Be cause J ohnson was not re prese nted by counsel at that hearing, he soug ht, and
we g ra nte d, a c e rt if ic ate of a pp e a la bil ity on the g ro un d th at th e Di str ic t Co ur t e rr e d b y fa ili ngto appoint counsel for that hear ing. On remand, the Dis trict Court appointed counse l for Johnson and conducte d a new hear ing on J uly 30, 2003. At that hear ing, J ohnson’s forme r attorne y testified that he could not re call any

offe rs from the g overnme nt; that he did not encoura g e his client to take a plea offe r bec ause none exis ted; that he discussed the possibili ty of a plea in g ener al with J ohnson; but that J ohnson had not indicated a desire to c ooperate. Nor, te stified the attorne y , had Johnson offere d information that could be used f or coope ration. The a

ttorney also testified that it was Johnson’s own de c isi on to g o to tr ia l. T he Di str ict Court e xpre ssl y

fo un d th e atto rn e y

to b e c re dib le in h is t e s t i m o ny. J ohnson, in turn, testified that his trial attorney had not conveyed any g overnme nt offer and that hi s atto rn e y ha d pr ov ide d no a dv ic e on ho w to ob ta in an of fe r. John so n a lso te sti fi e d that hi s3

atto rn e y ha d to ld h im the re wa s n o b e ne fi t to pl eadi ng guilty ve rs us g oin gto t

ri a l and that hi s
atto rn e y le ft him un awa re of e ve n th e c on c e pt o f c oo pe ra tio n in lie u o f t ri a l. On the q u es t i o n of whe ther the g overnme nt had in fac t made an of fer that J ohnson’s trial attorney had a duty

to convey , J ohnson’s only evidenc e consisted of

a stateme nt made in open c ourt by the prosec utor at Johns on’s 1998 sentenc ing he aring
. W hen aske d by the sentenc ing c ourt whether J ohnson had bee n g iven the opportunity to c ooperate, the prosec utor had a nswere d in the aff irmative, addingthat “[i] t has bee n sug g ested to counse l that it would be in [J ohnson’s] favor.” J ohnson contends thi s statement constitutes proof that the gove rnment made a plea offe r to his trial attorney . The re cord shows that there w as no other e vidence offe red on this exchang e. The prosec utor who made the statement in 1998 wa s not called to t estify at t he 2003 hear ing. Thus, on the basis of this statement alone , Petitioner contends the District Court erre d in finding that a plea offe r did not exi st. II. We reviewfor clear err or a district court’s f actua l findings f

ollowing a

n evidentiar

y hear ing on a § 2255 motion. Un ite d S tates v . Co sta nz o , 740 F.2d 251, 254 ( 3d Cir. 1984)
. At first blush, the prosec utor’s words do sug g est the g overnme nt made some kind of of fer . Ultimately , howeve r, the state me nt is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shc le ar e rr or , whic h e xists “ on ly if [a f ind ing ] is c omp le te ly devoid of c redible e videntiary basis or bea

rs no rational relationship to the supportingdata.” Sh ire U.S., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 32 9 F .3 d 3 48 , 3 52 (3 d Ci r. 20 03 ); see also Fe d. R. Civ. P . 52(a) (stating that “due r eg ard sha ll b e gi v en t o the opportunity of the trial c ourt to judge the cr edibility of the witnesses” where finding s are drawn from live testimony). The District Court hea

rd testimony

from both J ohnson and his former trial attorney . The4

District Court found that the attorne y had been a participating member of CJ A panels for some 15 y ear s and that the attorney ’s repr esentation of J ohnson in this case had been obje ctively rea sonable. Th e Di str ic t Co ur

t a lso fo un d, ba se d o n Johns on ’s te sti mony , that John so n h a d w ithhe ld f ro m hi s attorney the only potentially

useful information h e p o ssessed for purposes of initiatingplea dis c us si on s wi th t

he g ov e rnme nt: the name of ano the r i nd ivi du a l who ha d c omm itt e d a se pa rate robber y . After hear ing the testimony from both J ohnson and his former attorney , the Dis trict Court found the attorney

cre dible. The District Court also observed that, bec ause Johnson did notcall as
a wi tne ss t he pr os e c uto r who ma de the c ru c ia l 19 88 se nte nc ingsta te me nt, the re wa s n o e vid e nc e in the re cord to e x plain that statement or c onnect it t o an actual offer. Given the r ecor d evidenc e, the District Court did not c lear ly err in f inding that there was ne ver a n offe r to conve y . See Shire U.S., Inc. , 329 F.3 at 352; Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). As such, J ohnson’s ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel claim, which must be e valuated unde r t h e t wo -p ar t test set forth in Strickland v. W ashington , 4 6 6 U
. S
. 6 8 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , n e c e s s ar i l y f a i l s. Relevant to Strickland , which applies not only to trials but a lso to pleas, see Hi ll v . Lo c k ha rt , 474 U.S. 52 (1985), the District Court dete rmined that the pe rfor mance of the attorney

had met an ob je c tiv e ly re a so na ble sta nd ard and ha d n ot c a

us e d Johns on

pr e jud ic e . F or su

bs tanti a lly

the same
rea sons set forth above , these finding s were not clear ly err oneous either
. III
. We have c onsidered the rema ining arguments advanc ed by the par ties and conc lude that no further discussion is necessar

y . Acco rd i ng ly , the judg ment of the district cour t will be affir

med.