[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 40 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dis tri ct Co ur t No s. 1 :0 9- cv -0 06 29 -CG, 1: 06 -cr- 00 20 6- CG-B- 1 QUANG VA

N NGUYE N,
Mo va nt ,

ve rs us
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 16 , 20 12 )
Befo re J ORDAN and FAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d HOOD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

PER CURI AM:

Honora ble J oseph M. Hood, United States District J udg e for the Easter n Di s t ri ct of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. Case: 11-10407 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 1 of 3Fo ll owi ng or al arg um en t an d a rev ie w of th e reco rd , w e va cat e th e di st ric t

co ur t’s or de r de nyin g rel i e f b e c a u se we co nc lu de th at Mr. Ngu y en is en ti tl ed to an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl a i m. G iv en th e
de fin it io n of “ ic e” in USSG § 2D1 .1(c ), Not e (C) (d efi ni ng “ ic e,” fo r pu rp os es of §
2D1 .1, as “ a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng d- m et ha m ph et am in e hydro ch lo rid e of

at le as t 80 % p ur it y ”), th is is no t on e of th o s e c a s e s whe re th e “ m ot io n an d th e fil es

an d reco rd s of th e cas e sh ow t h a t t h e p r i so ne r is en ti tl ed to no rel ie f.” 28 U.S.C. §
22 55

. On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t sh al l ho ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Mr. Ngu y en ’s cl ai m t h at hi s co un se l ren de red in effe ct iv e as si st an ce at se nt en ci ng by
fai li ng to ob

ject to th e m et ha m

ph et am in e be in g “ ic e” fo r pu rp os es of § 2D1 .1. At th e

ev id en ti ary h e a r i n g, Mr. Ngu y en sh al l ha ve th e bu rd en of sh owi ng (1 ) th at hi s

co un se l ren de red de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce by fai li ng to ob ject, a n d (2 ) th at th ere is a

reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of th e

se nt en ci ng he ari ng (i.e ., th at th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il i t y t h at , ha d co un se l
ob jecte d, th e go ve rn m en t wou ld no t ha ve be en ab le to es ta bl is h th at th e

m et ha m ph et am in e was “ ic e” un de r § 2D1 .1(c ), Not e (C))

. Se e St ri ckl an d v.
W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 69 4 (1 98 4) (d e f i n i n g a “ reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y as a
pr ob ab il it y su ffi ci en t to un de rm in e co nf id en ce in th e ou tc om e”). At th e co nc lu si on

2 Case: 11-10407 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 2 of 3of th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t sh al l is su e fin di ng s of fact an d

co nc lu si on s o f la w and en te r a n ew jud gm en t g ran ti ng or d en y in g § 22 55 rel ie f.
The di st ric t co ur t sh al l ap po in t co un se l fo r Mr. Ngu y en pu rs ua nt to Ru le 8( C)

o f t h e Ru le s Gov ern in g § 22 55 Mo ti on s, whi ch pr ov id es th at “ [i]f an ev id en ti ar y
he ari ng is req ui red , th e jud ge sh al l ap po in t co un se l fo r a m ov an t who qu al ifi es fo r th e
ap po in tm en t of co un s e l un de r 18 U.S.C. § 30 06 A(g )[.]” Se e Sh ep er d v. Uni te d
St at es , 25 3 F. 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 87 (1 1 Ci r. 20 01 ). The di st ric t co ur t m ay wis h to co ns id er th

ap po in ti ng , as Mr. Ngu y en ’s co un se l fo r th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e a t t o r n e y who

w as co ur t-a pp oi nt ed to rep res en t Mr. Ngu y en on ap pe al , as th at at to rn e y i s n o w
fam il ia r wit h t he reco rd

. V A C A T E D A N D R E M A N D E D F O R A N E V I D E N T I A R Y H E A R I N G .

3 Case: 11-10407 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 3 of 3