0 9
- 1 5 5 9
- c r ( L) Unite d State s v . Ro man UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I NGS BY S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR AN E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ” ) . A P A R T Y C I T I N G T O A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF I T ON A N Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 3 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and t en. rd PRES ENT: RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, GE RA RD E . L YNC H, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v . Nos . 0 9
- 1 5 5 9
- c r( L) 0 9 -21 4 7 -pr (co n ) E D U A R D O M E D I N A C O L O N , R I C H A R D O R T I Z , 09- 2188- cr( con) a . k
. a . CA BE S S A, D e fen da n ts-Ap

p e lla n ts , M I LTO N RO M A N , a . k. a . J U STI CE , J ESSE C I V I D A N ES, E L U ID R IV E R A , a .k .a . S M O K E , a .k .a . S M O K E Y , WI L F RE DO AB RA HANT E , a . k
. a . T WI N, HAR RY J OH NSO N SA , W I LLI AM AB RA HA NTE, M I GU EL AC EVED O, THO M AS PEREZ, RA UL R EYES, AN GEL AVI L E S , T HOMAS BO BB I T T , a . k
. a . T OM I I I , S I L KI A B O N IL L A , a .k .a . S IL K Y , R E G IN A L D B R O W N , a .k .a . N O E L , S A M U E L K E N N E T H C L E M O N S , a .k .a . K E N N Y ,2

J O H N D E L O R E N Z O , a .k .a . J A C K , J E N N IF E R D O A K , a .k .a . J E N , L U IS G O N Z A L E Z , W IL L IA M J A C K S O N , a .k .a . B A D A , R E G IN A L D L E W IS , M IG U E L L O P E Z , SON YA LUC I AN O, BEN I GN O M ALA VE, J OSU E M AL DONAD O, DOMI NGO MEDINA, L E ANDA P E R R Y , a .k .a . M O N T E , N O E L R O D R IG U E Z , a .k .a . C H IC A N O , M A R L E N E S O T O , R A M O N S O T O , A N T W A N T A N N , a .k .a . T W A N , K A N E T A Y L O R , O ’N E A L W A R D , F L O R E N C E S A B A T U C C I, N A T H A N IE L W H IT E , D e fen da n ts .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- FO R A PPE L L A N T S: B R E N D A N W H IT E , W h it e & W hi t e, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, fo r D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t O rtiz . R o b e rt M . F ro st, Jr., Z e ld e s, N e e d le & C o o p e r, P .C ., B rid g e p o rt, C o n n e c tic u t, f

orD ef endant

-Appel lantC ol on . FOR APPELLEE : R O B E R T M . SPEC TOR , As s i s t a n t Uni t ed St at es A t t or ney (M ic h a e l J. G u s ta f

s o n , A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f orD avi d B
. Fei n, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe D i s tr i ct o f C o n n e c ticu t, N e w H a v e n , C o n n e c ticu t. Ap p e a l f r o m t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s tr i c t Co u r t f o r th e Di s tr i c t o f Co n n e c t i c u t( P e t e rC. D o rs e y , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DEC REED th a tthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm ent s ent er ed as t o defe ndantE duar do M edi na C ol on on M ar ch 17, 2009; and as t o defe ndantR i char d O r t i z on Jan u ary22, 2009, and A pr i l 17, 2 0 0 9 , a r e AF F I RMED . D e f e n d a n ts C o lo n a n d O rtiz w e re a m o n g th irty -f iv e p e rs o n s c h a rg e d in a sin g le3

i ndi ctm entw i th v ariou s nar cot i cs tr aff i cki ng cr i m es . See U ni t ed St at es v. R om an, N o. 06 C r . 00268 ( D . C onn. fi l ed O ct . 4, 2006)
. C ol on pl eade d gui l tyon J une 19, 2007, t o one count
o f p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e f i f tyo rmo r e g r a ms of

c o c a i n e b a s e , s e e 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 (a) (1) , and w as sent enced on N o vem ber 5, 20 07 , pri ncipal l yt o 1 20 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , the mandat orym i ni m um r equi r ed by21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A )
. O r t i z pl eade d g u il tyo n O ctob er 4 , 2 0 0 7 , to o n e c o u n t of p o sses sion w ith inten t to d istri b u te five o r m o re gr ams of cocai ne base , s ee 21 U . S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) , and t o one countof fi r earm pos s es s i on by a convi ct ed fe l on, s ee 18 U . S. C
. § 922( g)
. A l though O r t i z’ s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange a s
a career o f

f e n der, see U . S
. S
. G
. § 4 B 1. 1, exp osed h i m t o a rang e of 2 62 t o 3 27 m on ths’ i ncar cer at i on, on M ar ch 4, 2008, the di s tr i ctcourtdeci ded t o i m pos e a l ow er , non- G ui del i nes p ri so n sen tenc e o f 1 8 0 m o n ths, see U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S
. 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 -62 (20 0 5 ). N ei therdefe ndantappea l ed the or i gi nal j udgm ent s of convi ct i on. I ns t ead, theyeac h f il e d n o tice s o f

a p p e a l f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f th e ir m o tio n s f

o r a re d u c tio n in
se n ten c e p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) in lig h t o f th e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 a m e n d m e n t to the cr ack c ocai ne Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . O r t i z al s o fi l ed a not i ce of appea l fr om the di s tr i ct
court ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pursuantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 2255 al l egi ng i neff

ect ive ass i s t ance of couns el
. T hes e appe al s have be en cons ol i dat ed forour
r evi ew . I n C ol o n ’s cas e, defe ns e couns el has m oved t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , and the governm enthas m oved fors um m aryaff i rm ance ofO rt i z al s o fi l ed a s uppl ement al pr o s e mem or andum thatadvanc es el even a ddi t i onal 1 claim s o f in ef

fe cti v en ess – ran g ing fro m fa il u re su ff ici en tl yto inv esti g ate the G o v ern m en t’ s c a s e t o f a i l u r e t o r e v i e w Br a d y ma t e r i a l
. Be c a u s e Ort i z d i d n o tr a i s e th e s e c l a i ms b e l o w, we n ee d n o t add ress the m h ere . S ee K am ag ate v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 5 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 5 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). N eve rt h el es s , w e have r evi ew ed al l of O r t i z’ s ar gum ent s on appea l and ca n di s cern no pot ent i al forpr ej udi ce. 4 the di s tr i ct court ’ s j udgm ent deny i ng C ol on’ s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on. I n O r t i z’ s cas e, couns el has fi l ed a br i ef f

ocus i ng on the habe as appea l w i thoutas s i gni ng err ort o the § 3582( c) ( 2) deni al
. W e as s u m e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and hi s t oryof pr i orpr ocee di ngs

1 in e x p la in in g o u r d e c is io n to a f f irm th e c h a lle n g e d ju d g m e n ts . 1. O rt i z’ s § 2255 Pet i t i on W e r evi ew a di s tr i ct court ’ s deni al of a § 2255 pet i t i on de novo. See Y i ck M an M ui
v. U ni t ed S t at es , 614 F. 3d 50, 53 ( 2d C i r . 2010)
. A defe ndantcl ai m i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance
o f c o u n sel b ea rs a h ea v yb u rde n , see U n it ed S tat es v . G ask in, 36 4 F .3 d 4 3 8 , 4 6 8 (2d C ir
. 2004) , becaus e he m us tdemonstr at e both ( 1) thathi s att orney ’ s per form ance fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , and ( 2) r es ul t i ng pr ej udi ce, s ee Str i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U
. S. 668, 689, 694 ( 1984) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C ar acappa, 614 F. 3d 30, 46 ( 2d C i r . 2010)
. I n r evi ew i ng the r eas onabl enes s of an a t t orney ’ s conduct , w e “‘ i ndul ge a s tr ong pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ’ s conductfal l s w i thi n the w i de r ange o f r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal
as s i s t ance . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. G as ki n, 364 F. 3d at 468 ( quot i ng Str i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 46 6 U
. S
. at68 9). T o d em on strat e prej u d ice , the d efen dan tm ustshow that “‘ there i s a
r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the5

pr ocee di ng bel ow w oul d have been di ffe r ent . ’ ” Pugl i s i v. U ni t ed St at es , 586 F. 3d 209, 215 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g S tr icklan d v . W ash ing ton , 4 6 6 U . S
. at 69 4 ). O rt i z cont ends thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve i n fail i ng t o ar gue thathi s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange s houl d have be en cal cul at ed byr efe r ence t o pow dercoca i ne r atherthan
cra ck co ca ine b ec au se “c o ca ine ba se,” th e dru g to w h ich he p lead ed g u il ty , is a v ag u e term th a t c a n re f

e re n c e e ith e r f

o rm u la tio n . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2D 1. 1. W e di s agr ee. A s the di s tr i ct
courtobs erved, the coc ai ne bas e ati s s ue w as i dent i fi ed as cr ack c ocai ne no l es s than ni net een tim e s d u rin g O rtiz’ s p lea c o llo q u y . T h u s, th e re w a s n o v a g u e n e ss in th e c rim e a s a p p lied to O rt i z, and no obj ect i ve unre as onabl enes s i n couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o s eek aG ui del i nes cal cul at i on b ase d o n p o w d e r c o c a ine. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . S teph en so n , 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 (2d C ir
. 1999)
. Fur ther , O r t i z cannot s how pr ej udi ce be caus e hi s G ui del i nes r ange w as det erm i ned b yh is c a re e r o f

f e n d e r s ta tu s , s e e U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1, not by the drug type or quant i tyati s s ue,
s e e U .S .S .G . § 2D 1. 1. M or eover , the di s tr i ct courti m pos ed a s ent ence s ubs t ant i al l ybel ow even thatr ange. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thata w r i tof habe as corpus w as pr oper l ydeni ed. 2. T he § 35 82 (c) (2) M oti on s T o the ext ent one o r bo th defen dan t s appea l the d enial of thei r § 358 2(c) (2) m oti on s,
w e e a silyre

jec t an yc lai m o f e r r o r . T h e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts
w er e notel i gi bl e for§ 3582 (c)(2) r el i ef be caus e nei therw as s ent ence d pur s uantt o a G ui del i nes r ange “ thathas s ubs equent l y been l ow er ed by the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” 286

U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). I n cal cul at i ng the G ui del i nes r ange a s s oci at ed w i th C ol on’ s nar cot i cs offe ns e under U . S
. S
. G
. § 2D 1. 1, the di s tr i ctcourti n fac tappl i ed the N ovember2007 amendm entfr om
w hi ch C ol on now s eeks t o benef it
. C ol on, how ever , w as s ubj ectt o a G ui del i nes r ange det erm i ned bya s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um , w hi ch r ange w as notaff ect ed bythe N ovember 2007 amendm ent . See U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10 appl i cat i on n. 1; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es
v . W ill iam s, 5 5 1 F .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 -8 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). B e c a u se a n y§ 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) c h a ll e n g e in C ol on’ s cas e i s pat ent l ym er i t l es s , w e gr antC ol on’ s co u n sel’s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es , 129 F. 3d 710, 717 ( 2d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( gr ant i ng m ot i on t o w i thdr aw
w her e couns el has di l i gent l ys ear ched r ecor d for non- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s for r ever s al , and
n o n e e x is ts ), a s w e ll a s th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry a f

f ir m a n c e . A s forO r t i z, w e have al r eadyexpl ai ned thathi s G ui del i nes r ange w as det erm i ned by
r efe r ence t o U . S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1, s ee U . S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10 appl i cat i on n. 1; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es
v. M art i nez, 5 7 2 F . 3 d 82, 84 ( 2d C i r . 2009) , w hi ch w as notamended. I n anyevent , he
r ece i ved a non- G ui del i nes s ent ence that the di s tr i ctcourtexpr es s l ys t at ed w as not“bas ed on” the nar cot i cs orcar eerG ui del i nes . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 551 F. 3d at186. A c c o rd in g ly, w e a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t d e n y in g O rt iz § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) r e lie f
. W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e dthe otherar gum ent s on thi s cons ol i dat ed appe al and conc l ude that theyar e w i thoutm er i t . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm ent s ent er ed as t o C ol on on7

M ar ch 17, 2009; and as t o O r t i z on Ja n u ary 22, 2009, and A pr i l 17, 2009, ar e her eby AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt