A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

t h i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t14,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. A N G EL C O N TR ER A SCA STEL LA N O S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 8095 (D . C . N o. 04 -C V -129-J) (D . C . N o. 01 -C R -131-J) (D . W y o .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. D efen d an t- A p p ell an t C o n tr era s-C astell an o s ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s § 2255 m ot i on as s er t i ng tw o i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el c l a i m s . W e A F F I R M.- 2 - BA CKGROUND C ont r er as - C as t el l anos w as i ndi ct ed al ong w i th ei ghtother s on var i ous c h a r g e s i n v o l v i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s . S p e c i fi c a l l y, C on t rer as- C ast el l ano s w as charged w i th: ( 1) one c ou nt of con spi racyt o p ossess w ith in ten t to d istrib u te, a n d to d istrib u te m e th a m p h e tam in e a n d c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , and 846; ( 2) one countof di s tr i but i on and ai di ng and abe t t i ng i n t he di s tr i but i on of m ethamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) and 18 U . S. C . § 2; and ( 3) one countof i l l egal r eentr ybya deport ed al i en, i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) ( 2) . H e pl eade d g u iltyto ill e g a l re -e n tryb u t w e n t to trial o n th e re m a in in g tw o c o u n ts. D e sp ite hi s t r i al t es t i m onyt hathe w as noti nvol ved i n the drug tr aff i cki ng act i vi t i es , t he j ur yfound hi m gui l t yon t he cons pi r acycount . T heydi d, how ever , acqui thi m on th e d is tr ib u tio n c o u n t. T he di s t r i ctcourts ent ence d C ontr er as - C as t el l anos t o 188 m ont hs on t he cons pi r acycountand a c oncurr entt w enty - fourm onths on the i l l egal r e- entr ycount . O n di r ectappea l , t hi s courtaff i r m ed hi s convi ct i on. U n it ed S tat es v . C o n tr era s-C astell an o s, 5 6 F . A p p ’x 9 0 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). C o n tre ra s-C a ste llan o s la ter filed a m o tio n to v a c a te, s e t as id e , o r c o rre c t h is s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . H e ar gued tw o err or s i n the pr ocee di ngs bel ow , bot h gr ounded i n t he theoryof i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el : fi r s t , t hat hi s couns el fai l ed t o expl ai n t o hi m how t he conc eptof “r el evantconduct ” w as appl i ed i n a cons pi r acycas e; and s econd, t hathi s couns el fai l ed t o expl ai n how- 3 -

c e rta in p o rtio n s o f

th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s c o u ld h a v e a p p lied in hi s cas e. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, det erm i ni ng C ontr er as - C as t el l anos fai l ed t o s how t hathi s couns el ’ s per form ance w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entand th a t, e v e n a s s u m in g h e h a d , h e d id n o t s h o w th a t h e w a s p reju d ic e d . W e gr ant ed C ont r er as - C as t el l anos ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility (“ C O A ” ) o n b o th o f h is in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im s . DI S CU S S I ON W hen cons i der i ng t he deni al of a § 2255 mot i on, w e r evi ew t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s l egal rul i ngs de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v . O ra n g e , 4 4 7 F .3 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A cl ai m for i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el pr es ent s a mi xed ques t i on of fa c t a n d l a w, whi c h we r e v i e w d e n o v o . I n o r d e r t o e s t abl i s h a su c c e ss f u l cla im fo r in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, [a d e fe n d a n t] m us ts how ( 1) t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent , and ( 2) that t hi s defi ci entper form ance pr ej udi ced h i s defe ns e, depr i vi ng hi m of a fa irtr ia l w ith a re lia b le re s u lt. Id . (cita tio n s o m itt e d ). F u rth e r, “[ t]o p ro v e d e ficie n t p e rfo rm a n c e , [a d e fe n d a n t] m us ts how couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of re a s o n a b le n e s s .” S a lla h d in v . G ib s o n , 2 7 5 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A n d “[ t] o estab li sh p rejud ice, [h e] m u st sho w that, b u t fo r co u n sel’s errors, th ere i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt he r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en d iffe re n t.” Id . F in a lly , a d e fe n d a n t m u st e sta b lish b o th p ro n g s in o rd e r toB ot h t he di s t r i ctcour tand the governm entr el yon ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed 1 S tat es v . G o rdo n , 4 F . 3 d 1 5 6 7 , 1 5 7 0 -71 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), to arg u e tha t cou n sel’s fai l ur e t o pr edi cta cl i ent ’ s s ent ence acc ur at el ydoes notr i s e t o the l evel of defi ci entper form ance . H ow ever , fai l i ng t o pr edi cta s ent ence corr ect l yi s nott he s ame as fai l i ng t o under s t and the mechani cs of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes ( the issue all eg ed h ere ). S ee U n it ed S tat es v . M cC o y , 2 1 5 F . 3 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 8 (D . C . C ir . 2000) ( “[N ] oteveryerr orm ade i n appl y i ng the G ui del i nes amount s t o defi ci ent per form ance . . . but. . . ‘ fami l i ar i tyw i th the s tructur e and ba s i c cont entof the G ui del i nes . . . has become a nec es s i tyforcouns el w ho s eek t o gi ve effec t i ve rep rese n tat ion . ’”) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . D ay , 9 6 9 F . 2 d 3 9 , 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )). - 4 - s ucce ed on hi s cl ai m ; t hus , “a fai l ur e t o pr ove ei therone i s di s pos i t i ve. ” O r ange, 4 4 7 F .3 d a t 7 9 6 -9 7 . W e c o n c lu d e th a t, ev e n a ss u m in g th a t co u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s d e ficie n t, C ont r er as - C as t el l anos has fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den t o es t abl i s h pr ej udi ce on e i t h e rc l a i m. I . I ne ffe c t i ve A s s i s t anc e Bas e d O n C ouns e l ’ s Fai l ur e To E xpl ai n

“R el eva n t C on d u ct” In A C on spiracy C ase C ont r er as - C as t el l anos ar gues t hathi s att or neyadvi s ed hi m t hat , w er e he fo u n d g u i l t yo f

c o n s p i r a c y , h e wo u l d b e h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e fo ro n l yt h e 9 4 8 g r a ms o f d ru g s c o n fi s c a t e d b yt h e g o v e rn me n td u r i n g i t s d ru g i n v e s t i g a t i o n . He c l a i ms h e wa s n e v e ri n fo r me d t h a th e c o u l d b e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e fo rt h e 9 . 2 7 k i l o g r a ms i nvol ved i n t he l ar gercons pi r acy . H e furthercont ends t hat , had he unde r s t ood t he p o te n tia l s e n te n c e h e w a s fa c in g , h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p ro c e e d e d to tr ia l. E v e n a ss u m in g th a t co u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyd e ficie n t, 1 C on t rer as- C ast el l ano s has fai l ed to dem on strat e prej ud i ce. A s noted, C on trer asC as t el l anos ar gues t hat , had he know n aboutt he pr operappl i cat i on of the- 5 -

“ re le v a n t c o n d u c t” g u id e lin e , h e w o u ld h a v e p le a d e d g u ilty a n d n o t g o n e to tr ia l. H ow ever , as t he governm entpoi nt s out , t he defendantpr ovi des no evi dence or ar gum entt hatt he r el evantconductattr i but ed t o the defendantw oul d have change d bas ed on a gui l t ypl ea. T he defendantw as as s es s ed 9. 27 ki l ogr ams of m ethamphet ami ne i n t he PSR , m eani ng he fe l l i nt o the drug quant i tyr ange of

“ [ a ]t le a s t 5 K G b u t le s s th a n 1 5 K G ,” w h ic h re s u lts in a b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f 3 6 . Hi s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s — e a c h o f wh o m d i d p l e a d g u i l ty— we r e a s s e s s e d t h e s a me bas e offens e l evel . See U ni t ed St at es v. M ont oan- H err er a, 351 F. 3d 462, 463 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); U n it ed S tat es v . T o p ete-P lasce n cia, 35 1 F . 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 (10 th C ir . 2003) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J i m enez - O l i va, 82 F. A pp’ x 30, 32 ( 10th C i r . 2003) (un p u b li sh ed ); U n it ed S tat es v . V ir g en -C h av arin, 35 0 F . 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 6 (10 th C ir . 2003) . T hus , as t her e i s not hi ng t o s ugges tt hatC ontr er as - C as t el l anos w oul d have fac ed a l ow erbas e offens e l evel had he pl eade d gui l ty( upon a corr ect u n d e rsta n d in g o f

th e re lev a n t co n d u c t ca lcu latio n ), h e h a s fa iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g “ a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld have be en di ffe r ent . ” Sal l ahdi n, 275 F. 3d at1235. I I . I ne ffe c t i ve A s s i s t anc e Bas e d O n C ouns e l ’ s Fai l ur e To E xpl ai n

Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ’ “Safet y V al ve” R educt i on C ont r er as - C as t el l anos al s o ar gues t hathi s couns el w as i neffect i ve for fai l i ng t o expl ai n t he s o- cal l ed “s afe tyval ve” pr ovi s i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes . ” I f a de fenda ntm eet s cert ai n cr i t er i a, i ncl udi ng ( as r el evanther e)S pecifi cal l y , a defend ant m ustsat i sfyt he fo l l ow i ng requi rem ents : 2 ( 1) t he defendantdoes nothave mo re t han 1 cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt , as determ i ned un der the sentenci ng gu i deli nes; ( 2) t he defendantdi d notus e vi ol ence orcr edi bl e thr eat s of vi ol ence or pos s es s a fi r earm orot herdanger ous w eapon ( ori nduce a nother par t i ci pantt o do s o) i n connec t i on w i th the offens e; ( 3 ) t he offens e di d notr es ul ti n death ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yt o any per s on; ( 4) t he defendantw as not an or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , ors upervi s or of other s i n t he offens e, as det erm i ned underthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes a n d w a s n o t en g a g e d in a c o n tin u in g c rim in a l en terp rise , a s d e fin e d in s ect i on 408 of the C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct ; and ( 5) notl a t e rt h a n t h e t i me o f th e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , th e d e fe n d a n thas t rut hful l ypr ovi ded t o t he G overnm ent al l i nform at i on and evi dence the defe ndanthas conce r ni ng the offens e oroffe ns es th at w er e partof the s ame cour s e of c onductorof a c om m on s che m e o r pl an, butthe fa ct t hat t he defendanthas no r el evantorus eful otheri nform at i on t o pr ovi de ort hatt he G overnm enti s al r eadyaw ar e of the i nform at i on s hal l not pr ecl ude a de t erm i nat i on byt he courtt hatt he defendanthas compl i ed w ith th is re q u ire m e n t. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (f)(1)-(5 ). - 6 - “trut hful l ypr ovi d[i ng] t o t he G overnm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence the d e fe n d a n t h a s c o n c e rn in g th e o ffe n se ” b e fo re th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , h e is ent i t l ed t o a tw o- l evel r educt i on i n hi s bas e offens e l evel , even i f the r educt i on re s u lts in a s e n te n c e b e lo w th e s ta tu to ry m a n d a to ry m in im u m . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( f) ( 1) - ( 5) ; s ee al s o U . S. S. G . §§ 2D 1. 1 and 5C 1. 2. C ontr er as - C as t el l anos 2 cl ai m s t hat , had couns el expl ai ned thi s pr ovi s i on t o hi m , he w oul d have “ pr ovi dedH e d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t co u n se l in c o rre c tlye x p lain e d o r fa iled to 3 u n d e rsta n d th e p ro v isio n ; o n lyth a t co u n se l fa iled to m a k e h im a w a re o f it. - 7 - a c o m p let e a n d tru thf

u l disclosu re a s to a ll the fac ts r eq u ir ed to m ee t th e statuto ry re q u ir e m e n ts .” 3 E ven i f t his cou nsel ’s act i on w as const i tuti on al l ydefici ent, C on trer asC a ste llan o s h a s n o t sh o w n h o w h e w a s p reju d ice d b yth e lac k o f o p p o rtu n ityto a ttem p t to q u a lifyfo r th e re d u c tio n . C o n tre ra s-C a ste llan o s d o e s n o t ex p lain w hati nform at i on he w oul d have di s cl os ed i n or dert o s at i s fyt he pr ovi s i on. E ven s o, he w oul d have ha d t o di s cl os e one of tw o thi ngs ; ei ther( 1) t hathi s t es t i m ony dur i ng t r i al w as acc ur at e and he di d notpart i ci pat e i n orknow aboutt he drug tra ffick in g sc h e m e ; o r (2 ) th a t h e d id n o t tell th e tru th d u rin g trial a n d h e w a s, in fac t , i nvol ved i n t he cons pi r acy . N ei therconfe s s i on, pers e, di s qual i fi es hi m fr om t he r educt i on. See 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) ( 5) ( “[T] he fa ctt hatt he defendanthas no r el evantorus eful ot heri nform at i on t o pr ovi de ort hatt he G overnm enti s al r eady aw ar e of the i nform at i on s hal l notpr ecl ude a de t erm i nat i on byt he courtt hatt he defe ndanthas compl i ed w i t h t hi s r equi r ement . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J effer s , 329 F. 3d 94, 99 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thata defendant ’ s per j urydoes notdi s qual i fy h im f ro m th e s a fe ty v a lv e re d u c tio n if h e “ c o m e s c le a n ” b e fo re s e n te n c in g ). H ow ever , underei t herappr oach, C ontr er as - C as t el l anos has nots how n a “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt he r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Sal l ahdi n, 275 F. 3d at1235.- 8 -

A l t hough C ont r er as - C as t el l anos cl ai m ed attr i al thathe w as noti nvol ved i n t he drug t r aff

i cki ng act i vi t i es , t he j uryfound C ontr er as - C as t el l anos gui l tyof c o n sp ira c y ; o n d ire c t ap p e a l, w e a ffirm e d th a t th e re w a s s u fficie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor tt hi s ver di ct . C ont r er as - C as t el l anos , 56 F. A pp’ x at906- 07. I n l i ghtof t hi s , had C ont r er as - C as t el l anos att empt ed t o qual i fyforthe r educt i on by m aintainin g h is i n n o ce n ce , there is si m p lyn o rea so n ab le pro b ab il itythat the c o u rt w oul d have found t hathe had methi s bur den of “ truthful l ypr ovi d[i ng] t o the G overnm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence the defendanthas conce rni ng the offe ns e. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) ( 5) ; s ee a l s o V i r gen- C havar i n, 350 F. 3d at1129 ( not i ng t hati ti s t he defendant ’ s bur den t o pr ove, bya pr eponder ance , thathe has sati sfied ea ch crit erion ). I f, on t he otherhand, C ontr er as - C as t el l anos att empt ed t o qual i fyforthe s afe t yval ve r educt i on byadmi t t i ng thathe w as i nvol ved i n the cons pi r acy , he w oul d have e xpos ed hi m s el f t o a tw o- l evel s ent enci ng enhanc ementfor obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. W e have no r eas on t o thi nk thats uch a n e n h a n c e m e n t w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n so u g h t an d a p p lied . S e e Je ffe rs, 3 2 9 F .3 d a t 99 ( not i ng t hatw her e a de fenda ntper j ur es hi m s el f attr i al butthen “c om es cl ean” b e fo re se n ten c in g , h e is n o t d isq u a lifie d f ro m th e sa fe tyv a lv e re d u c tio n b u t h is “per j ur yi s acc ount ed fori n t he enha ncementforobs truct i on of j us t i ce unde r U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. ”) . T hus , even i f C ontr er as - C as t el l anos r ece i ved the tw o- poi nt re d u c tio n u n d e r th e sa fe tyv a lv e , the re is n o re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t h e w o u ldC ont r er as - C as t el l anos al s o cont ends t hatt he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have 4 hel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o pr oper l yeval uat e hi s § 2255 m ot i on. T he di s tr i ct cour tfound thatt he r ecor d “conc l us i vel yi l l us tr at e[d] ” thatC ontr er as - C as t el l anos w a s n o t e n title d to re lie f, a n d th e re fo re d e c lin e d to h o ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . C o n tre ra s-C a ste llan o s’s o n lya rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t su c h a h e a rin g w o u ld have c l ar i fi ed w hetherhe w as act i ng on hi s couns el ’ s advi ce bypl eadi ng not gui l t yand mai nt ai ni ng hi s i nnocenc e thr oughoutt r i al . H ow ever , t hi s i s s ue i s not relev an t t o o u r disp o sit ion o f th e c ase . W e the refo re a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt t hatno hear i ng w as nece s s ary , as t he r ecor d “conc l us i vel ys how [s ] t hatt he pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef. ” U ni t ed St at es v. K ennedy , 225 F. 3d 1187, 1193 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). - 9 - nothave a l s o r ece i ved a tw o- poi ntenhanc ementforobs truct i on. I n s hor t , as w e ca nnotconcl ude thatC ontr er as - C as t el l anos w oul d have fac ed a l ow ers ent ence underei t hers cena r i o, he has notm ethi s bur den t o s how th a t co u n se l’s fa ilu re to in fo rm h im o f th e sa fe tyv a lv e p ro v isio n , ev e n if defi ci ent , caus ed hi m pr ej udi ce. CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of C ont r er as - C as t el l anos ’ s § 2255 m ot i on. 4

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge