N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GAB R IEL R

UIZ SALC EDO, AKA Ga brie l Sa lc e do-R

uiz , AKA Ga

brie l R uiz Sa lc ido, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-16112

D.C . Nos. 1:15-c v-00402-JM S-KJM 1:10-c r-00055-JM S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii J. M ic ha e l Se a

bright, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 10, 2017 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : SC HR OEDER , D.W . NELSON, a nd M c KEOW

N, C irc uit Judge s. Ga brie l Sa lc e do a

ppe a ls the de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2255 m otion to va c ate , se t a side , or c orre c t his lifese nte nc e for c onspira c y to distribute

and posse ss with inte nt to distribute

50 gra m s or m ore of m e tha

m phe t am ine an d atte m

pt to posse ss 

# FIL ED N OV 02 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.with inte nt to distribute 50 gra m s or m ore of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 846, 841(a

)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(B ), and 18 U.S.C
. § 2. B e fore tria l, the gove rnm e nt file d a spe c ia l inform ation pursua n t to 21 U.S.C . § 851 listing two prior fe lony drug c onvic t ions tha

t inc re a se d Sa lc e do’ s se nte n c e from a m andatory

m inim um of te n y e ars to life im

prisonm e n t. The distric t

c ourt issue d a c e rtific ate of a

p pe a l a bility (“ C OA” ) on one que stion ste m m ing from Sa lc e do’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im : “ Whe the r Sa lc e do c ould ha ve pre v e n te d the Gove rnm e nt from filing a n Inform ation pursua

nt to 21 U.S.C . § 851. Put diffe re ntly , if Sa lc e do ha d indic ate d a

de sire to e nte r a guilty

ple a be fore the Gove rnm e nt file d a

§ 851 Inform ation, c o u ld he have e nte re d tha t ple a without providing the

Gove rnm e nt tim e to file tha t Inform ation.” W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(c ). W e re vie wa distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ha be a s c orpus pe tition denovo, a nd we a ffirm
. To suc c e e d

on a c l a im of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e , a ha be a s pe titione r m

ust prove that his “ c ounse l’ s re p re se ntation fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of
re a s ona ble ne s s,” and tha

t the re wa s “ a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for
c ounse l’ s unprofe s siona l e rrors, the re sult of the proc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).

2Eve n a ssum ing tha t c ounse l’ s re pre se ntation wa s de fic ie nt, Sa lc e do c annot show a re a sona ble proba bility tha t, rathe r tha

n proc e e ding to trial, he would ha ve ple d guilty prior to thegove rnm e nt filing a § 851 spe c ia l inform at ion. W ith no spe c ia l inform at ion file d, Sa lc e do’ s m andat ory m inim um would ha

ve be e n 10 y e ars, with a

guide line ran ge of 292 to 365 months. Sa l c e do ne ve r c onte ste d the distric t c o urt’ s findings tha t he wa s unwilling to ta

ke a se nte nc e of m ore tha

n 20 y e ars a nd tha t he still wa

nte d to proc e e d to tria l a fte r his a ttorne y s a dvise d him

of this ra nge . B e c a

use Sa lc e d o wa s ne ve r willing to ta k e a se n te nc e of m ore tha

n 20 y e ars a nd his minim

um se nte nc ing guide line ran g e wa s we ll a bove 20 y e ars, Sa lc e do would ha

ve still proc e e de d

to tria l e ve n if the gove rnm e nt did not or c ould not file a spe c ia l inform ation. Sinc e Sa lc e do fa ils to de m onstra t e pre judic e , we ne e d not re solve the te m

pora l re quire m e nts of § 851. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Sa lc e do’ s pe tition. AFFIRM E D.

3