T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

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

### D e c e m b e r26,2006 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. L U IS M A N U E L G O N Z A L E Z , al so k n o w n a s L u is G o n z a lez , fo rm e rly know n as Ser gi o L oer a, al s o know n as A ur en V el as co, al s o know n as G uer o, al so kn ow n as L uis , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5009 ( N . D . O kl ahoma) ( D . C . N os . 02- C V - 759- C and 9 9 - CR- 6 6 - C)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re KEL LY , M URP HY, and HO LM ES , C ir c u it J u d g e s . I . I nt roduct i on L ui s M anuel G onzal ez pl eade d gui l tyt o cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt ent t o di s t r i but e and t o di s t r i but e met hamphet ami ne and c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. B as ed on a t ot al offe ns e l evel of fi fty , pur s uantt o the U ni t ed- 2-

S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d h im to life in p ri s o n . A f ter th is c o u rt a ffirm e d th e c o n v ictio n o n d ire c t ap p e a l, G o n z a lez m o v e d to vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255, al l egi ng hi s att orney , C i ndy C u n n in g h a m , err o n e o u slya ss u re d h im h e w o u ld re c e iv e o n lyfo u rte e n y e a rs in pr i s on i f he pl eade d gui l t y . T he di s tr i ctcourti ni t i al l ydeni ed the mot i on w i thout hol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng. O n appea l , t hi s courtr emanded t o the di s tr i ct c o u rt fo r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez , 98 F. A pp’ x 825, 832 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( G o n za lez II) . Fol l ow i ng the evi dent i aryhear i ng, t he di s tr i ct cour tagai n deni ed G onzal ez’ s m ot i on, fi ndi ng C unni ngham had m ade no a ss u ra n c e s a s to th e len g th o f se n ten c e th a t w o u ld b e im p o se d . G o n z a lez a p p e a ls t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on. T hi s courtexer ci s es j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) and a ffi r ms t he or derof the di s tr i ct c o u rt. I I . Backg r ound G onzal ez, a M exi can na t i onal w i th l i m i t ed conve r s at i onal E ngl i s h and a six th -g ra d e e d u c a tio n , w a s in d icte d fo r c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e and t o di s t r i but e met hamphet ami ne and c ocai ne. T he s uper s edi ng ind ict m en t l ist ed G o n za lez a s the p ri n cipa l sup p li er o f m etha m p h etam ine fo r a l ar ge di s t r i but i on netw or k. C unni ngham, t he as s i s t antfede r al publ i c defender a p p o in ted to re p re se n t G o n z a lez , sp o k e n o S p a n ish a n d u se d a n in terp re ter to comm uni cat e w i t h G onzal ez.T h e p a rties d isp u te th e len g th o f th e m e e tin g o n O c to b e r 1 . W h ile 1 G onzal ez c l ai m s t he meet i ng l as t ed j us tfi ft een mi nut es , t he governm entcont ends t he meet i ng coul d have l as t ed up t o an hour . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound the evi dence s uppor t ed the conc l us i on t hatt heys poke “much l ongert han the fi ft een to tw e n ty m in u te s ” a lle g e d b yG o n z a le z .

- 3- A ft eri ni t i al l ypl eadi ng notgui l ty , G onzal ez e nt er ed a pl ea of gui l tyon Oc t o b e r 1 , 1 9 9 9 , fo l l o wi n g a me e t i n g wi th Cu n n i n g h a m a n d a n i n t e rp r e t e r . At 1 t he pl ea he ar i ng, t he di s t r i ctcourtengage d i n a col l oquyw i th G onzal ez i n w hi ch G onzal ez c onfi rm ed he w as aw ar e of the cha r ges and w as aw ar e he face d a p o tential li fe sen tenc e. G o n za lez a lso stated h e w as sa ti sfied w ith C u n n ing h am ’s r epr es ent at i on. T he pet i t i on t o ent ert he gui l typl ea, w hi ch G onzal ez s i gned and confi r m ed he ha d di s cus s ed w i t h hi s att or ney , i ncl uded a pr ovi s i on expl ai ni ng no a tto rn e yh a d a u th o rityto p ro m ise h im a n yp a rticu lar se n ten c e . F o llo w in g th is hear i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tacc ept ed G onzal ez’ s gui l typl ea. Subse quent l y , G onzal ez a rr anged a m eet i ng w i th the governm enti n an effor tt o pr ovi de coope r at i on s uffi ci entt o r educe hi s s ent ence . I n a four - hour m eet i ng w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es A t t orney ’ s O ffi ce, how ever , G onzal ez pr ovi ded no us eful i nform at i on. T he governm entt her efor e di d notgi ve a favor abl e s ent ence r ecomm endat i on as a r es ul tof thi s m eet i ng. T h e p rese n tenc e inv esti g ati o n rep o rt(“P S R ”) p rep are d af ter G o n za lez’s gui l t ypl ea i ndi cat ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of fi fty . I tbas ed thi s cal cul at i on on a bas e offens e l evel of thi r t y - ei ghtfori nvol vementi n the s al e of more t han fi ft eenG o n z a lez late r re tra c ted h is s tate m e n t as to H o rn a n d lim ited h is c laim to 2 th e p ro m is e m a d e b yC u n n in g h a m .

- 4- ki l ogr ams of met hamphet ami ne, a tw o- poi ntenhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a fi r earm , a tw o- poi ntenhanc ementforthe unl aw ful i m por t at i on of l i s t ed chemi cal s , a four - poi ntenhanc ementforhi s r ol e as or gani zerof a c r i m i nal act i vi t y , a tw o- poi ntenhanc ementforthe us e of c hi l dr en t o comm i tthe offens e, an d a tw o -po int en h an ce m en t fo r ob stru cti o n o f ju sti ce b ase d o n G o n za lez’s a ttem p t to b rib e a n d in tim id a te a w itn e ss w h ile in jail. A d d iti o n a lly , the P S R d id n o t g iv e G o n z a lez a d o w n w a rd a dju stm e n t fo r a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty beca us e he ha d obs t ruct ed j us t i ce. B as ed on the PSR , C unni ngham i nform ed G onzal ez he w as l i kel yfac i ng l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . G onzal ez a l l eges thi s w as the fi r s tt i m e C unni ngham had everdi s cus s ed the pos s i bi l i tyof a l i fe s ent ence . A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , G o n z a lez to ld th e c o u rt h e p lea d e d g u iltyo n ly b e c a u se C u n n in g h a m a n d D o u g H o rn , the A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y , told h im h e w o u ld re c e iv e a n u n c o n d iti o n a l fo u rte e n -y e a r se n ten c e a s a re su lt o f h is p lea . C u n n in g h a m d e n ied m a k in g a n yp ro m ise s to G o n z a lez , sta tin g “ I c e rta in ly 2 k n o w b e tte r t h a n to m a k e a n yp ro m is e s o f a n ya m o u n t o f

tim e to a n yc lie n t. I w oul d neverm ake thatr epr es ent at i on. ” The di s tr i ctcourtnot ed G onzal ez ha d been i nform ed of the maxi m um s ent ence att he t i m e of hi s pl ea. T he courtt hen s ent ence d G onzal ez t o l i fe i n pr i s on, bas ed on an a dopt i on of the r eas oni ng s et fo r t h i n t h e P S R.- 5-

G onzal ez f

i r s tbr oughta di r ectappea l of hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , a rg u in g h is g u iltyp lea w a s n o t k n o w in g , inte lli g e n t, an d v o lu n tar yb e c a u se h e d id n o t f u llyu n d e rsta n d th e p ro c e e d in g s o r th e e x ten t o f p u n ish m e n t h e fa c e d . T h is c o u rt a ffirm e d th e c o n v ictio n a n d th e se n ten c e , h o ld in g th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly compl i ed w i t h R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e and G onzal ez’ s gui l t ypl ea w as know i ng, i nt el l i gent , and vol unt ary . G onzal ez then m o v ed to v ac ate h is sen tenc e u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 , co n tend ing C u n n ing h am ’s fal s e pr om i s es of a four t een- y ears ent ence cons t i tut ed i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and i m pr oper l ycoer ced hi s gui l typl ea. T he di s tr i ctcour ti ni t i al l ydeni ed th e m o tio n w ith o u t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g , fin d in g n o c re d ib le e v id e n c e to s uppor tG onzal ez’ s cl ai m . O n appea l , how ever , thi s cour tr emanded t o the di s t r i ctcour tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he i s s ue of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l. G o n za lez II, 98 F. A pp’ x at832. A tt he evi dent i aryhear i ng, the courthear d t es t i m onyfr om C unni ngham and G o n za lez, as w ell as o ther w itn esse s. G o n za lez a lso introd u ce d C u n n ing h am ’s not es and a l et t erw r i t t en byC unni ngham i n r es pons e t o a compl ai ntbyG onzal ez fil ed w ith the O k laho m a B ar A sso ciati o n (“O B A ”). Fo ll o w ing the e v iden ti ary hear i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tagai n concl uded G onzal ez ha d fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a cl ai m fori neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . I n doi ng s o, the courtr ej ect ed G onzal ez’ s t es t i m onyon t hi s m att erand found Cunni ngham m ade no pr om i s e as to the leng th o f se n tenc e G o n za lez w o u ld rec eive . A d d it ion all y , the d istri ct co u rtI n hi s br i ef, G onzal ez a l s o char act er i zes t hi s pr om i s e as a pr om i s e of ni ne 3 to fif tee n y e a rs. F o r p u rp o se s o f c o n sis ten c ya n d sim p licity , this c o u rt w ill i dent i fyt he al l eged pr om i s e as four t een y ear s , r athert han ni ne t o fi ft een. G onzal ez i ndi r ect l yr ai s es addi t i onal i ns t ance s of al l eged i neffect i ve 4 as s i s t ance of couns el i nvol vi ng C unni ngham’s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o var i ous s ent ence enhanc ement s . G onzal ez’ s appea l , how ever , does notchal l enge the s e n te n c e im p o s e d a n d s e e k s o n ly to v a c a te h is p le a a n d re v e rs e h is c o n v ic tio n . T hus , t hi s cour tneed notaddr es s t hes e othercl ai m s beca us e i neffect i venes s att he t i m e of s ent enci ng coul d have no be ar i ng on t he vol unt ar i nes s of G onzal ez’ s pl ea.

- 6- found anyes t i m at e of a r educe d s ent ence gi ven byC unni ngham w as cont i ngent o n G o n z a lez ’s f

u ll co o p e ra tio n w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. II I. A n a ly sis O n appea l , G onzal ez a r gues C unni ngham’s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance dur i ng t he pl ea pr oces s coer ced hi m i nt o ent er i ng a pl ea w hi ch w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . Speci fi cal l y , he al l eges C unni ngham re ckl es s l ypr om i s ed hi m he w o u ld re c e iv e o n lyfo u rte e n y e a rs in p riso n if h e p lea d e d g u ilty , fa ili n g to 3 a d e q u a telyin v e stig a te a n d in fo rm h im o f se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts th a t w o u ld l i kel yr es ul ti n a l i fe s ent ence . H e furthercont ends he w oul d nothave pl eade d 4 gui l t yi f notfort hatm i s r epr es ent at i on. A l though the di s tr i ctcourtfound C unni ngham m ade no s uch pr om i s es , G onzal ez a r gues document aryevi dence p re se n ted a t th e e v id e n tiary he a rin g e sta b lish e s th e se fin d in g s a re c lea rly err oneous . T hi s cour thas r evi ew ed the evi dence G onzal ez r el i es on and con cl ud es there i s suffi ci ent evi den ce t o sup po rtt he d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng s.- 7-

I n r e v i e wi n g a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n , th i s c o u r tr e v i e ws t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s l egal ruli ng s de novo a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. O r ange , 447 F. 3d 792, 796 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cons t i tut es a mi xed ques t i on of fa ctand l aw and i s r evi ew ed de novo . Id. A g u i l t y p l e a i s v a l i d o n l y i f i ti s e n t e r e d b y th e d e fe n d a n tk n o w i n g l y, v o lu n ta ri ly, an d in te llig e n tly. Uni t ed Stat es v. Hur l i ch , 293 F. 3d 1223, 1230 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h is s tan d a rd is s a tisfied o n lyif th e d e fe n d a n t h a s “ a f u ll under s t andi ng of w hatt he pl ea c onnot es and of i t s cons equenc es . ” Id . ( quot i ng B oy k i n v . A l a b a ma , 3 9 5 U .S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 4 (1 9 6 9 )). T h u s, a g u iltyp lea is v o id if it i s “i nduced bypr om i s es . . . w hi ch depr i ve i tof the cha r act erof a vol unt aryact . ” Wel lni tzv. P age , 420 F. 2d 935, 936 ( 10th C i r . 1970) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hen a defe ndantent er s a gui l t ypl ea on the advi ce of couns el , the defendantm ayatt ack th e v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f

th e p le a b ys h o w in g in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Hi l lv. L ockh art , 4 7 4 U . S . 5 2 , 5 6 -57 (19 8 5 ). T o s ucce s s ful l ychal l enge a gui l typl ea ba s ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , t he defendantm us ts how “thatcouns el ’ s per form ance fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s and that , butforcouns el ’ s err or , the defe ndantw oul d have i ns i s t ed upon goi ng t o tr i al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Si lva , 430 F. 3d 1096, 1099 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Hill , 474 U . S. at58- 59) . T hi s cour thas r epea t edl yr ecogni zed thatan att orney ’ s m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons t o the- 8-

d e fe n d a n t a s to th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a p le a m a yre n d e r a p le a in v o lu n ta ry. Id. ; Laycockv. New Mexi co , 8 8 0 F .2 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). T h is m is in fo rm a tio n , h o w e v e r, g e n e ra lly m u s t c o n s is t o f fa ls e p ro m is e s o r g u a ra n te e s . See Fi elds v. G i bs on , 2 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 1 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); B raun v. Ward , 190 F. 3d 1181, 1189- 90 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . A m er e mi s cal cul at i on orerr oneous s ent ence es t i m at e bydefe ns e couns el “i s nota cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci ent per form ance r i s i ng t o t he l evel of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G or don , 4 F . 3 d 1 5 6 7 , 1 5 7 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). In su p p o rt o f

h is c laim th a t a p ro m ise w a s m a d e , G o n z a lez re lies p rim a rily o n t wo p i e c e s o f

d o c u me n t a r ye v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a tth e e v i d e n t i a ryh e a r i n g . He fi r s tpoi nt s t o C unni ngham’s not es fr om A ugus t17, 1999, w hi ch cont ai n a cal cul at i on of a four t een- y ears ent ence , appar ent l ybas ed on herappl i cat i on of the S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s. A d d iti o n a lly , G o n z a lez re lies o n C u n n in g h a m ’s le tter to t he O B A . I n t hi s l ett er , C unni ngham w r ot e, “B as ed on the i ni t i al amount of drugs r epor t ed byt he governm ent , i tdi d appea rthatM r . G onzal ez c oul d be l ooki ng at any w here from nine t o fift een y ears . ” A s noted bythis cou rti n G on zal ez’s fi rs t app eal of the den i al of h i s § 22 55 m oti on , i f G on zal ez w ere abl e t o est abli sh C unni ngham com m uni cat ed thes e es t i m at es t o hi m as pr om i s es and he r el i ed on th e s e p ro m is e s in p le a d in g g u ilty, h is c la im w o u ld lik e ly su c c e e d . G o n za lez II, 9 8 F . A p p ’x a t 8 3 0 ; se e a lso We lln itz , 420 F. 2d at936 ( “[I ] f an a t t orney re c k les slyp ro m ise s h is c lien t th a t a s p e c ific s e n ten c e w ill fo llo w u p o n a g u ilty- 9-

pl ea . . . t he ques t i on m ayar i s e . . . w hethers uch r epr es ent at i on m aybe dee m ed co n sti tuti o n all yineffe cti v e.”). C ont r aryt o G onzal ez’ s as s er t i ons , how ever , nei therthe A ugus t17 not es n o rt h e l e t t e rt o t h e OB A p r o v i d e s c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e a p r o mi s e wa s ma d e . At m os t , t heys how onl yt hatC unni ngham m ade a n err oneous es t i m at e of the s ent ence . A l t hough t hi s es t i m at e w as s ubs t ant i al l ybel ow the l i fe s ent ence u ltim a te ly im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt , th is d o e s n o t a lo n e in v a lid a te th e p le a . See Thom as v. Ker by , 4 4 F .3 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). L ik e w ise , ev e n if G onzal ez for m ed fa l s e expe ct at i ons as t o the l ength of hi s s ent ence bas ed on C unni ngham’s advi ce, “[a ] defe ndant ’ s s ubj ect i ve under s t andi ng . . . i f i ti s not bas ed upon anypr om i s e made bythe defens e att or ney , the pr os ecut or , orthe cour t , w i l l notunderm i ne the cons t i tut i onal i tyof the pl ea . . . . ” C unni ngham v. D ies slin , 9 2 F . 3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). In li g h t of the d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ng t hatno pr om i s e w as m ade, C unni ngham’s err oneous es t i m at e as t o the sent ence d oes no tfal l below an o bject i ve st and ard of reasonab l eness. T he di s t r i ctcour tfur t herfound C unni ngham i nform ed G onzal ez thatthe pos s i bi l i t yof a four t een- y ears ent ence w as cont i ngenton hi s cooper at i on w i th t he g o v ern m en t. B ase d o n the testi m o n yat th e e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g , this co u rt concl udes s uch a f

i ndi ng w as notcl ear l yerr oneous . Fi r s t , C unni ngham t es t i fi ed herfour t een- y ears ent ence es t i m at e w as bas ed on G onzal ez’ s cooper at i on w i th t he governm ent . She expl ai ned s he t ol d G onzal ez “ m anyt i m es ” he c oul d avoi d a l i feA l t hough B arr agan t es t i fi ed the fourt een- y ears ent ence w as cont i ngenton 5 G o n z a lez ’s c o o p e ra tio n , sh e a lso tes tifie d th e se n ten c e w a s n o t co n tin g e n t o n h is cooper at i on. L i kew i s e, G onzal ez e xpl ai ned he metw i th the governm ent fo llo w in g th e p lea n o t to a v o id a life se n ten c e , b u t ra th e r in a n e ffo rt to re d u c e h is sent ence b el ow fou rt een y ears .

- 10- s ent ence onl yi f he c ooper at ed. A l though C unni ngham’s not es do notm ent i on s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance as a pr er equi s i t e t o herfour t een- y ears ent ence cal cul at i on, th is d o e s n o t m e a n s h e c o u ld n o t h a v e d is c u s s e d th is re q u ir e m e n t w ith G o n z a le z . In a d d iti o n , G o n z a lez ’s g irlfr ien d , P a tricia B a rra g a n , tes tifie d th a t b o th C un ningham and G on zal ez t old her he w ou l d recei ve fo urt een to fi ft een y ears if he coope r at edw i t h t he governm ent . Fur ther , G onzal ez di d i n fac tm eetw i th the g o v e rn m e n t fo llo w in g h is g u iltyp lea in a n e ffo rt to p ro v id e a ss ista n c e . W h ile t her e i s confl i ct i ng t es t i m onyr egar di ng w hetherthe fourt een- y eares t i m at e w as cont i ngent on G onzal ez’ s cooper at i on, i ti s ul t i m at el yt he r ol e of the di s tr i ct 5 co u rt , n o t th e a p p ell ate c o u rt , to as sess cre d ibil ityan d w eigh the e v iden ce b efo re it. Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ow ni ng , 252 F. 3d 1153, 1157 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . G i ven the evi dence i n t he r ecor d, i tw as notcl ear l yerr oneous fort he di s tr i ctcourtt o fi nd G onzal ez w as aw ar e he c oul d r ece i ve the fourt een- y ears ent ence onl yi f he pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o the governm ent . H i s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de s uch a ss ista n c e c a n n o t re n d e r C u n n in g h a m ’s r e p re se n tatio n c o n stitu tio n a llyd e ficie n t. T h ere is al so su ffici en t evid en ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rtthe d istri ct co u rt ’s concl us i on t hatG onzal ez w as m ade a w ar e of the pos s i bi l i tyof a l i fe s ent enceT hi s cour tr ecogni zes t hatw her e err oneous advi ce i s bas ed on the 6 at t or ney ’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e the fa ct s of the ca s e i n good fai th, t hi s fai l ur e may ri s e to th e le v e l o f

in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l, e v e n if

n o p ro m is e is m a d e . See Moor e v. B r

yant , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 1 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In th is case , h o w ev er, t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he fi ndi ng thatC unni ngham had a d e q u a telyin fo rm e d h e rse lf o f th e se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts w h ich c o u ld re su lt i n a l i fe s ent ence forG onzal ez.

- 11- befor e ent er i ng hi s pl ea. T he di s tr i ctcour tfound C unni ngham w as aw ar e, pr i or t o t he gui l t ypl ea, t hatG onzal ez face d a l i fe s ent ence i f he fai l ed t o gi ve the g o v e rn m e n t h is f

u ll co o p e ra tio n . T h e c o u rt th e n fo u n d C u n n in g h a m m e t w ith G o n z a lez o n S e p tem b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 , an d O c to b e r 1 , 1 9 9 9 , info rm in g h im h e c o u ld re c e iv e a m a x im u m o f a life se n ten c e if

h e p lea d e d g u ilty . G o n z a lez h a s fa iled to con vince this cou rtt hese findi ng s ar e cl earl yerr on eou s. G on zal ez cha l l eng es the d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng s i n tw o respect s. H e fi rs t ar gues C unni ngham di d notadequa t el yi nves t i gat e the pos s i bl e s ent ence enhanc ement s and ther efor e coul d nothave be en aw ar e he l i kel yfac ed a l i fe s ent ence . A l t hough C unni ngham’s name i s not abl yabs entfr om the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s di s coveryl ogs , s he and H orn eac h t es t i fi ed theydi s cus s ed the s ent enci ng enhanc ement s pr i ort o t he cha nge of pl ea. T hus , the abs ence of her n a m e f ro m th e d isc o v e rylo g s d o e s n o t co n c lu siv e lysh o w sh e w a s n o t ad e q u a tely aw ar e of t he addi t i onal s ent enci ng enhanc ement s . E ven i f s he had notbeen 6 aw ar e of the s peci fi c enha ncement s , how ever , t he evi dence s uppor t s t he c o n c lu sio n sh e w a s a d e q u a telya w a re o f th e p o ss ib ili tya d d iti o n a l en h a n c e m e n tsI ti s undi s put ed G onzal ez a nd C unni ngham w er e pr es enti n the courtr oom 7 tog ethe r on S ep tem b er 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 , fo r th e p retri al co n fe ren ce , an d C u n n ing h am ’s not es fr om t hatdat e i ndi cat e s om e di s cus s i on t ook pl ace . A l though cour tr ecor ds i ndi cat e the i nt erpr et erw as “notneede d” atthe hea r i ng, i ti s undi s put ed s he w as p re se n t. F u rth e r, G o n z a lez tes tifie d h e w a s a b le to sp e a k b rie flyw ith C u n n in g h a m w ith o u t an in terp re ter o n tw o o c c a sio n s, d e sp ite n o t b e in g a b le to under s t and herw el l . A s t o t he meet i ng on O ct ober1, t he part i es di s put e onl yt he l ength of the meet i ng and do notdi s put e a meet i ng w i th an i nt erpr et eroccurr ed.

- 12- coul d ar i s e. Fur t her , t o t he ext entG onzal ez’ s s ent ence w as enhanc ed bas ed on i nform at i on notm ade a vai l abl e unt i l aft erhi s gui l typl ea, nei therhi s nor C unni ngham’s l ack of aw ar enes s of thes e s peci fi c enha ncement s has anybear i ng o n h is c la im . C

f . Si lva , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 9 (“ [ N ]e w in fo rm a tio n late r a p p e a rin g in t he pr es ent ence r eportconce r ni ng cr i m i nal hi s t orydoes notr enderthe pl ea u n k n o w in g a n d in v o lu n ta ry.” ). G o n za lez a lso a rgu es th e e v iden ce d o es n o t sup p o rtthe d istri ct co u rt ’s fin d in g th a t C u n n in g h a m m e t w ith G o n z a lez p rio r to th e g u iltyp lea to in fo rm h im o f th e p o ss ib ili tyo f

a life se n ten c e . W h ile th e re a re c e rta in lytw o p lau sib le ver s i ons of w hathappene d on Sept ember30 and O ct ober1, the ver s i on acc ept ed b ythe d istri ct co u rtis no t cl ea rl yerro n eo u s. In a d d it ion to C u n n ing h am ’s t es t i m onyt hats he i nform ed G onzal ez of pos s i bl e s ent enci ng enhanc ement s and a pot ent i al l i fe s ent ence , C unni ngham’s not es and courtr ecor ds s uppor tt he c o n c l u s i o n s h e s p o k e w i t h G o n z a l e z t o s o m e e x t e n to n t h o s e d a t e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y, 7 G onzal ez e xpl i ci t l yacknow l edged dur i ng hi s change of pl ea he ar i ng thathe under s t ood t he s ent ence “w oul d be a pe r i od of i m pr i s onm entno l es s t han t en- 13-

y e a rs a n d it c o u ld b e fo r life .” H e a lso sig n e d a p e tit io n to e n ter th e g u iltyp lea in w hi ch he r ecogni zed no one had the author i tyt o pr om i s e hi m anypart i cul ar sent ence. W hil e G on zal ez m ayhav e ho ped or expe ct ed to r ecei ve a sen t ence less t han the maxi m um , hi s err oneous expec t at i on does notr equi r e the pl ea t o be in v a lid a te d . F i elds , 277 F. 3d at1214. B eca us e G onzal ez ha s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h C unni ngham ass ur ed hi m he w oul d r ece i ve onl yfour t een y ear s i f he pl eade d gui l tyand bec aus e the di s tr i ct cour tfound C unni ngham adequat el yi nform ed hi m of the pos s i bi l i tyof a l i fe sen tenc e, he h as fail ed to sh o w h er p erfo rm an ce “fell b elow an o bjecti v e stan d ard of r eas onabl enes s . ” See Si lva , 430 F. 3d at1099. T her efor e, t hi s courtneed not re a c h th e s e c o n d p ro n g o f th e in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e a n a lysis . See Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 697 ( 1984) ( “[T] her e i s no r eas on fora courtdeci di ng a n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim . . . to a d d re ss b o th c o m p o n e n ts o f th e in q u iryif the d efen d an t m ak es a n insu ffici en t sho w ing o n o n e.”). I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e fo reg o ing rea so n s, this co u rtaffi rm s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of G onzal ez’ s § 2255 m ot i on. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge