# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 18 40

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Sh owi n Keo n Dav is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el le e

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 0, 2 01 7

Fil ed : M ay

26 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A fte r reject in g two pl ea of fers

, Sh owi n K. Dav is pl ed gu il ty to on e co u n t o f

co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 )

an d 84 6. The di st ric t co ur t se n te nc ed hi m to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Dav is

m ov ed to va cat e th e co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce un de r 28 U

. S

. C

. § 22 55

, cl ai m in g

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt,

or de rin g th e go ve rn m en t to reo ffer an earl ie r pl ea de al

. The go ve rn m e n t a p p e a l s.Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §§ 12 91 an d 22 53

, th is co ur t rev ers es in pa rt an d

rem an ds

.

I.

Dav is was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

, a ch arg e

wit h a man da to ry te n- y ear se nt en ce. The go ve rn m en t m ad e th ree pl ea of fers ; th e

se co nd an d t hi rd are at is su e h ere.

The fir st , off

ered m on th s b efo re t ria l, was a st an da rd co op erat io n a gr eem en t.

Dan ie l E. Hop pe r, Dav is ’s app oi nt ed att or ne y

, ex pl ai ne d th e ag reem en t to hi m . He

reject ed it

.

A week be fo re tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d Dav is a fiv e-year de al (th e se co nd

of fer)

. Hop pe r reco m

m en de d he ta ke it

, ex pl ai ni ng a jury li ke ly wou ld fin d hi m

gu il ty. He reject ed it

. The y ag ai n di sc us se d th e fi v e

- ye a r de al th e fir st m or ni ng of

tri al . Davi s s ho wed no in te res t i n i t.

On th e se co nd da y of tri al

, th e g o v e r n men t m ad e a th ird of fer. It ha d a

m an da to ry te n- y ear se nt en ce, bu t li m i t e d th e type an d qu an ti ty of co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc es at tri bu ta bl e to Dav is

. He acce pt ed

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt e n c e d h i m to

12 0 m on th s.

Dav is m ov ed to va cat e h i s c o n v ic ti on an d se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

,

al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. He as se rte d fo ur cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t

fo un d t he y

cl us te r[ed ] aro un d two se pa ra t e th eo rie s: (a) du rin g th e co ur se of th e

pr et ria l pr oc eed in gs Hop pe r d i d no t affo rd Dav is an op po rtu ni ty to

rev ie w di sc ov ery an d d id no t fi le an y pre tri al m ot io ns ; an d (b ) Hop pe r

-2

-fai le d to pr ov id e Dav is wit h th e in f o r mat io n to m ak e an in fo rm ed

de ci si on on th e p ro po se d p le a ag reem en t an d u lt im at e ch an ge of p le a.

Afte r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

, th e co ur t reject ed th e fir st th eo ry

, bu t gr an te d th e

m ot io n o n t he sec on d:

W hi le Hop pe r’s rep res en ta ti on was no t en ti rel y in effe ct iv e, du rin g t he

im m ed ia te pr et ria l pr ep arat i on ph as e, Hop pe r fai le d to effe ct iv el y

co m m un ic at e th e la w of co ns pi racy in a way th at Dav is was cap ab le of

co m pr eh en di ng ; Hop pe r fai le d to ex pl ai n th e r i s k s an d be ne fit s of th e

pl ea of fer in a way th at Dav is co ul d co m pr eh en d; an d Hop pe r

m is in fo rm ed Dav is of hi s el ig ib il it y fo r th e sa fet y va lv e. The se fai lu res

an d co nv ey an ce of m is in fo rm at io n co ns ti t u te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l wi th in th e m ean in g o f St ric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n.

The co ur t va cat ed th e co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. It or de red th e go ve rn m en t to reo ffer

th e fi ve -y ear d eal . The g ov ern m en t ap pe al s.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s un de r § 22 55

, an d th e

un de rlyin g fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Unit ed St at es v. Reg eno s

, 40 5 F.3 d 69 1,

69 2- 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). To es ta bl is h in effe ct iv e as si st an ce du rin g pl ea ne go ti at io ns

,

th e pe ti ti on er m

us t sh ow “ ‘cou ns el ’s rep res en ta ti on fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd

o f reas on ab le ne ss ’” an d “ th at su ch de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed ” th e de fen s e

.

Id

. at 69 3, qu ot in g St

ri ck la nd v. Wa sh in gt on

, 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 8 (19 84 ). Preju di ce

req ui res “ a reas on ab le p ro ba bi li ty th at

, bu t fo r co un se l’s un pr of es si on al erro rs

, th e

res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ff e r e n t

. ” S t

ri ck la nd

, 46 6 U.S. at 69 4.

“ [S]cru ti ny of co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce m us t be hi gh ly de fere nt ia l.” Ha m be rg v.

Unit ed S t a t e s

, 6 7 5 F.3 d 11 70

, 11 72 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. The re is a “ st ro ng pr es um pt io n th at co un se l’s co nd uc t fal ls wit hi n th e wid e

ran ge of reas on ab le pr of

es si on al as si st an ce.” Unit ed St at es v. Tay lo r

, 25 8 F.3 d 81 5,

82 0 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ), ci ti ng St ri ck la nd , 46 6 U.S. at 68 9.

-3

-II.

The d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d Hop pe r was in effe ct iv e be cau se he di d no t

co m m un ic at e “ th e la w of c on sp ira cy ” an d “ th e ris k an d b en efi ts of t he pl ea o ffer in

a way th at Davi s co ul d c om

pr eh en d.” The co ur t fo un d:

(1 ) “ At th e ou ts et

, it sh ou ld be no te d th at th e cl ai m th at Hop pe r ne ve r sp en t a

su ffi ci en t a mo u n t of ti m e co ns ul ti ng wit h Dav is wou ld be eas il y di sp os ed of in th e

or di na ry cas e. Hop pe r sp en t m or e th an 27 ho ur s i n c on fere nc e wit h Dav is ov er t he

co ur se of p ret ria l pr ep arat io n. Und er or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces , t hi s le ng th of ti m e is

typic al ly suf

fic ie nt to m eet wit h a cri m in al de fen da nt in a cas e o f th is na tu re.”

(2 ) “ The reco r d do es no t m ak e pl ai n, bu t it ap pe ars th at fro m th e ou ts et th at

Dav is ha d li m it ed in te res t i n c oo pe rat in g wi th th e p ro se cu ti on

. It is cl ear th at fro m

th e ve ry earl ie st st ag es of hi s rep res en ta ti on of Dav is

, Hop pe r tri ed to co nv in ce Dav is

th at co op erat io n was th e be st st rat eg y

. The r e c o r d a ls o m ak es pl ai n th at Dav is

be li ev ed th at th e Uni te d St at es wou ld ha ve di ffi cu lt y bo th po si ti ve ly id en ti fy in g hi m

as a pe rs on in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy an d es ta bl is hi ng a ro le fo r hi m in th e

co ns p i r a c y

. It is eq ua ll y cl ear th at up on rev ie w of th e di sc ov ery th at Hop pe r ha d

reac he d a di ffer en t co nc lu si on .”

(3 ) “ [O]n Mar ch 4, 20 13

. . . Dav is met w i t h H o pp er an d Hop pe r’s se ni or

pa rtn er Cas h Aala nd fo r two ho ur s in th e m or ni ng an d an ot he r th ree an d a ha lf ho ur s

in th e aft ern oo n fo r a to ta l of 5.5 ho ur s. Dur in g th is m eet in g a co m pr eh en si ve rev ie w

of th e di sc ov ery, t h e l ik el ih oo d of su cces s on th e m eri ts

, an d a di sc us si on of a

po ss ib le pl ea ag reem en t to ok pl ace. Dav is reject ed th e id ea of a ch an ge of pl ea an d

in di cat ed a de si re t o p ro ceed to tri al .”

-4

-(4 ) “ [O]n Mar ch 25

, 20 13

, ap pr ox im at el y te n da y s pr io r to tri al

. . . [th ere was

a] m eet in g la st [in g] fo ur ho ur s [wh ic h] in cl ud ed a fu rth er rev ie w of th e ev id en ce an d

a p le a o ffer .”

(5 ) “ Dav is sp en t m or e th an 27 ho ur s in co ns ul ta ti on wit h Hop pe r. The reco rd

m ak es pl ai n th at Dav is ha d ap pr ox im at el y fiv e ho ur s on Mar ch 4, 20 13

, to rev ie w th e

di sc ov ery an d an ot he r fo ur ho u rs on Mar ch 25

, 20 13

. It is al so ap pa ren t fro m th e

ti m e reco rd s th at Hop pe r ha d nu m ero us le ng th y ph on e co nf eren ces wit h Dav is

di sc us si ng th e cas e an d t he ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im .”

(6 ) “ The reco rd is pl ai n th at Dav is was gi ve n su ffi ci en t op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w

th e di sc ov ery an d he was fu ll y in fo rm ed ab ou t th e ev id en ce th at wou ld ha v e b e en

pr es en te d t o s up po rt t he ch arg e at th e ch an ge of p le a h eari ng .”

(7 ) “ Dav is ’s la wy ers

, Hop pe r, Lan ge

, an d Aala nd each fo rcef ul ly at te m

pt ed

to ex pl ai n th e la w of co ns pi racy an d ho w Dav is m ig ht be co nv ic te d, pa y in g pa rti cu la r

at te nt io n t o t he po ss ib le pe na lt ie s h e fac ed .”

(8 ) “ It is ap pa ren t th at Hop pe r a l o n g w it h hi s pa rtn ers Aala nd an d Lan ge

at te m pt ed to ex pl ai n t he law o f co ns pi racy in ways th at Davi s co ul d u nd ers ta nd .”

( 9 ) “Du r i n g [th e ti m e le ad in g up to th e reject io n of th e pl ea of fer], Hop pe r

rev ie wed di s c ov ery an d of fere d up ex pl an at io ns of po te nt ia ll y vi ab le de fen se s. He

al so in fo rm ed Dav is o f t h e di ffi cu lt ie s th at an id en ti fic at io n de fen se m ig ht pr es en t.

The di sc us si on s a t t h i s po in t were es se nt ia ll y m oo t si nc e Dav is ha d in di cat ed an

un wil li ng ne ss to co op erat e wit h th e go ve rn m en t an d was fo cu se d on th e m eri ts of an

id en ti fic at io n de fen se

. Bas ed on th e reco rd

, th e co ur t can no t sa y th at Hop pe r pr ov id ed

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l at th is st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in gs .”

-5

-(1 0) “ Dav is is no t th e fir st d e f e n d a nt to fai l to he ar th e m es sa ge be in g

de li ve red by his lawyer.”

Des pi te th es e fin di ng s, th e co ur t co nc lu de d Hop pe r “ fai le d to effe ct iv el y

co m m un ic at e th e la w of co ns pi racy in a way th at Dav i s was cap ab le of

co m pr eh en di ng ,” be cau se : “ (1 ) Dav is su ffer s fr om m en ta l il ln es se s an d co nd it io ns

th at im pa ir hi s ab il it y to fo cu s an d to m ak e reas on ed de ci si on s, so m et hi ng hi s la wy ers

sh ou ld ha ve be en aware of an d ta ke n in to acco un t; an d (2 ) Hop pe r’s co m m un ic at io n

st y le an d he av y rel ia nc e on te le ph on e co m m un ic at io n di d no t m es h well wit h Dav is ’s

di ffi cu lt ie s.”

i.

The di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s fir st fin di ng —t ha t Dav is su ffer s fro m m en ta l il ln es s

th at im pa ire d hi s a b i l it y to un de rs ta nd rep eat ed ad vi ce fro m Hop pe r an d m ak e

reas on ed de ci si on s (an d th at Hop pe r sh ou ld ha ve kn own th is )—p rimaril y on m en ta l

he al th reco rd s pr es en te d to su pp or t Dav is ’s 22 55 m ot io n. The reco rd s do no t su pp or t

th is fin di ng

.

The reco rd s sh ow: (1 ) Dav is was ad m it te d to th e ho sp it al two m on th s be fo re

tri al fo r a po ss ib le ov erd os e/ su ic id e at te m pt ; (2 ) he was pr es cri be d an t i d e p r e s sa nt s

(Zol of t an d Trazo do ne ); an d (3 ) at di sc ha rg e h e w a s di ag no se d wit h m al in ge rin g,

an xi et y di so rd er, m oo d di so rd er, an d can na bi s de pe nd en ce. Th e ex am in in g do ct or

sa id : “ Fu nd of kn owl ed ge

, in si gh t an d ju d gm en t are fai r. He is or ie nt ed to ti m e,

pl ace an d pe rs on

. Att en ti on an d co nc en tra ti on are in ta ct

, as well as rece nt an d rem ot e

memo r y .” The do ct or al so rep or te d: “ The pa ti en t do es no t gi ve an y rel ia b l e

in fo rm at io n” ; “ I st ro ng ly be li ev e th at pa ti en t is m al in ge rin g, an d he is tryin g to ev ad e

hi s le ga l pr ob le m s” ; “ He is jus t no t be in g tru th fu l he re a nd I be li ev e th at he is

m al in ge rin g” ; an d “ Pat ie nt wil l be di sc ha rg ed on th e sa me da y of ad m is si on .”

Rev ie win g th e reco rd s, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d, “ Dav is su ffer s fro m se rio us

-6

-m en ta l he al th pr ob le m s” in cl ud in g “ pr ob le m s wit h at te nt io n, an xi et y (in cl ud in g

ag or ap ho bi c tra it s)

, de pr es si on

, an d le arn in g” an d th is m en ta l il ln es s m ad e it di ffi cu lt

fo r Dav is to un de rs ta nd “ wha t h is lawyers were trying to tel l h im .”

The di s t ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in fin di ng th at Dav is su ffer ed fro m m en ta l

il ln es s th at im

pa ire d h i s a b i l it y to un de rs ta nd le ga l ad vi ce an d m ak e reas on ed

de ci si on s. The m en ta l he al th reco rd s sh ow no le arn in g or co m pr eh en si on li m it at io ns

.

To th e co nt rary, the r eco rd s s ho w hi s “ [a]tt en ti on an d co nc en tra ti on are in ta ct ” an d

he un de rs to od an arra y of to pi cs

, in cl ud in g “ pa ti en t co nt ract ag reem en ts ,” “ ne ces si ty,

ris ks

, b en efi ts , a nd po ss ib le si de effe ct s of m ed ic at io ns ,” “ in di vi du al iz ed tre at m en t

pl an [s ], ” “ va ria bl es affe ct in g an ti ci pa te d le ng th of st ay ,” an d “ ou tc om es th at m us t be

ach ie ve d pr io r to di sc ha rg e.” If an y th in g, th e reco rd s sh ow he ha s a hi st or y of lying

ab ou t h is m en ta l h eal th in ord er t o e va de leg al pro bl em s.

The fin di ng al so co nt rad ic ts th e di st ric t co ur t’s earl ie r fin di ng s th at Dav is was

co m pe te nt to pl ead gu il ty and be sen te nc ed . At th e ch an ge of pl ea, th e co ur t fo un d

Dav is co m

pe te nt : “ I se e a pe rs on he re who do es se em to be fu nc ti on in g well wit hi n

th e be ll cu rv e who d o e s s e e m t o un de rs ta nd th e pr oc eed in gs

, do es se em to be in a

po si ti on to as si st hi s co un se l i n hi s de fen se an d I fin d th at he is co m pe te nt to

pr oc eed .” Se e Sha

fer v. Bo wer

so x

, 32 9 F.3 d 63 7, 65 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (th e qu es ti on

“ whe th er t he accu se d was co m pe te nt ” m ean s “ di d h e h av e th e ab il it y to un de rs ta nd

th e pr oc eed in gs ”). And al th ou gh th e co ur t no w be li ev es th at “ Dav i s was act ua ll y

su ffer in g fro m m or e pr of

ou nd m en ta l il ln es s th an th e co ur t un de rs to od at th e ti m e of

th e ch an ge of pl ea,” it affi rm ed it s co m pe te nc y fin di ng s in th e 22 55 or de r. Thu s, th e

co ur t st il l be li ev es Dav is was ab le to un de rs ta nd le ga l ad vi ce an d m ak e reas on ed

de ci si on s t he da y

he pl ed gu il ty.

The di st ric t co ur t al so cl earl y erre d in fin di ng th at Hop pe r “ sh ou ld ha ve

k n o w n ” th at Dav is was no t ab le to un de rs ta nd le ga l ad vi ce or m ak e re a s o n e d

de ci si on s. “ A fai r as se ss m en t of at to rn ey pe rfo rm an ce req ui res th at ev ery effo rt b e

-7

-m ad e to el im in at e th e di st or ti ng effe ct s of hi nd si gh t, to reco ns tru ct th e ci rcu m st an ces

of co un se l’s ch al l en ge d co nd uc t, an d to eva lu at e th e co nd uc t fr om co un se l’s

pe rs pe ct iv e at th e ti me .” St

ri ck la nd

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 9 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Da v i s’s

m en ta l il ln es s pr ov id es a ba si s fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l on ly if Hop pe r

kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of it at th e ti m e. Se e Cr ens ha w v. Wo lff

, 50 4 F.2 d 37 7,

38 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 74 ) (aff

irming de ni al of po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f whe re “ th ere was no

e v id en ce th at th e tri al at to rn ey kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ab ou t pe ti ti o n e r ’s

po ss ib le in co m

pe te nc y ”).

The re is no ev id en ce th at Hop pe r sh ou ld ha ve kn own th at Dav is ’s m en ta l

he al th is su es —n ot hi s st ead fas t de ni al of wro ng doi ng— w ere th e reas on fo r hi s fai lu re

to fo ll ow Hop pe r’s le ga l ad vi ce. Se e J o n e s v

. Ba rn es

, 46 3 U.S. 74 5, 75 1 (1 98 3)

(“ [T]he accu se d ha s th e ul ti m at e au th or it y to m ak e c ert ai n fu nd am en ta l de ci si on s

reg ard in g th e cas e, as to whe th er to pl ead gu il ty.”). To t h e co nt rary, th e ev id en ce

sh ows Hop pe r ha d no reas on to be li ev e Dav is co ul d no t un de rs ta nd le ga l ad vi ce or

m ak e reas on ed de ci si on s. D a v i s t e s t i fie d he is th e “ ki nd of a pe rs on whe re I do n’t

li ke sh ari ng in fo rm at io n ab ou t m y well -b ei ng m ean in g th at I ta ke m ed ic at io ns .” All

pa rti es te st ifi ed to hi s co m pe te nc e on th e da y he pl ed gu il ty, a week aft er he in it ia ll y

reject ed th e 5- y ear pl e a of fer an d a da y aft er he reject ed it a se co nd ti m e. At th e 1

ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng

, Dav is te st ifi ed th at he un de rs to od “ th e na tu re of th e ch arg e”

ag ai ns t h im , “ th e p ot en ti al pe na lt ie s . .

. in cl ud in g t he 10 -y ear m an da to ry m in im um

At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng

, Dav is te st ifi ed th at th e fir st ti m e he rev ie wed th e 1

fiv e-year of

fer was Apr il 2, th e fir st da y of tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t cred it th is

te st im on y :

On Mar ch 25

, 20 13

, th e Uni te d St at es ex te nd ed an of fer th at wou ld ha ve

al lo wed Dav i s to pl ead to a red uc ed qu an ti ty th us red uc in g th e

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce fro m te n y ears to fiv e y ears

. Dav is sp en t

fo ur ho ur s wit h Hop pe r on Mar ch 25 rev ie w i n g di sc ov ery an d

di sc us si ng th e pl ea of

fer. Fo ll owi ng th os e d is cu ss io ns , Davi s re jecte d

th e p le a o ffer

.

-8

-se nt en ce,” hi s rig ht to a jury tri al

, an d th e un av ai la bi li ty of pa ro le

. Hop pe r si m il arl y

te st ifi ed he ha d no t “ se en an y th in g th at wou ld cau se [h im ] to qu es ti on [Dav is ’s] le ga l

co m pe te nc e.” (Dav is la te r te st ifi ed he di d no t kn ow whe th er Hop pe r kn ew ab ou t hi s

an xi et y th e fir st da y of tri al

, an d he no t as k Hop pe r to he lp hi m wit h it ). At th e pl ea

he ari ng , th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d h im co m pe te nt to pl ead gu il ty:

Here’s wha t I th in k I’ve se en an d ob se rv ed . T h e d efen da nt ha s rel at ed

th at h e ha s so m e hi st or y of m en ta l il ln es se s an d th at he ’s ta ki ng

m ed ic at io ns f

o r t h e m; th at he was ta ki ng hi s m ed ic at io ns ; th at he

s k ip pe d y es te rd ay

. Afte r he to ok hi s m ed ic at io ns th at th in gs s e e med

cl eare r to hi m an d th at he wan ts to pl ead gu il ty. Tha t to th e Co ur t se em s

to be a rat io na l d eci si on at t hi s p oi nt

.

. . . .

I se e a pe rs on he re who do es se em to be fu nc ti on in g well wit hi n th e be ll

cu rv e who do es se em to un de rs ta nd th e pr oc eed in gs

, do es se em to be in

a po si ti on to as si st hi s co un se l i n h i s d efen se an d I fin d th at he is

co m pe te nt to pro ceed

.

The co ur t rei te rat ed th es e fin di ng s in it s 22 55 or de r: “ It is al so cl ear th at at th e ti m e

he en te red hi s pl ea, Dav is was in a po si ti on to un de rs ta nd th e ch arg e ag ai ns t hi m

, th e

pe na lt ie s th at he face d, hi s co ns t i t u ti on al an d st at ut or y rig ht s, an d th at he was in a

po si ti on to as si st hi s la wy er in hi s de fen se .” At se nt en ci ng

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

qu es ti on hi s co m

pe te nc e.

The reco rd sh ows th at w h e n he pl ed gu il ty, Dav is

, Hop pe r, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t al l be li ev ed Dav is was co m pe te nt to un de r s t a n d le ga l co un se l an d m ak e

reas on ed de ci si on s. The co ur t’s fin di ng th at “ Dav is su ffer s fro m m en ta l il ln es se s an d

co nd it io ns th at im

pa ir hi s ab il it y to fo cu s an d to m ak e reas on ed de ci si on s, so m et hi ng

hi s la wy ers sh ou ld ha ve be en aware of an d ta ke n in to acco un t” is th us in flu en ced by

“ th e di st or ti ng effe ct s of hi nd si gh t,” an d is cl ear erro r. St ri ck la nd

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 9.

-9

-ii

.

The se co nd fin di ng —t ha t “ Hop pe r’s co m m un ic at io n st y le an d he av y rel ia nc e

on te le ph on e co m

m un ic at io n di d no t m es h well wit h Dav is ’s di ffi cu lt ie s” —d oe s no t

pr ov id e a ba si s for i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e of co un se l. Fi rs t, it is a cl os e cal l whet he r

th is fin di ng is su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. The co ur t de sc rib ed Hop pe r’s co m m un ic at io n

st y le :

The co ur t is fam il ia r wit h Hop pe r, a cap ab le an d co m pe te nt la wy er. His

pe rs o n al st y le of co m

m un ic at io n is so ft- sp ok en

, in fere nt ia l, an d

no n- co nf ro nt at io na l. He is a pe rs on who pr efer s to pr ov id e in fo rm at io n

an d al lo w th e li st en er to dr aw hi s or he r own co nc lu si on s. If th e li st en er

ha s di ffi cu lt y reac hi ng th e m os t ap pa r e n t co nc lu si on

, Hop pe r te nd s to

co nv ers at io na ll y an d rat io na ll y

, an d so m et im es rep et it iv el y

, ex pl ai n th e

co nc lu si on an d t he ram ifi cat io ns

.

The co ur t al so fo un d th at Hop pe r “ at te m pt ed to ex pl ai n th e la w of co ns pi racy in way s

th at Dav is co u l d u n d e rs ta nd .” The se fin di ng s sh ow th at Hop pe r th or ou gh ly an d

rep eat ed ly ex pl ai ne d th e la w, an d y et Dav is co nt in ue d to rejec t p l e a of fers

. The

di st ric t co ur t do e s n ot sa y ho w Hop pe r m or e th or ou gh ly co ul d ha ve ex pl ai ne d th e

la w. In fact

, th e co ur t reco gn iz ed th at m an y of Hop pe r ’s e x p l a n at io ns were m oo t

be cau se Davi s was un wil li ng to co op erat e:

Dur in g th is rem ot e pr ep arat io n pe rio d, Hop pe r rev ie wed di sc ov ery an d

of fere d up ex pl an at io ns of po te nt ia ll y vi ab le de fen se s. He al so in fo rm ed

Dav is of th e di ffi cu lt ie s th at an id en ti fic at io n de fen se m ig ht pr es en t. The

di sc us si on s at th is po in t were es se nt ia ll y m oo t si nc e Dav is ha d in di cat ed

an un wil li ng ne ss to co op erat e wit h th e go ve rn m en t an d was fo cu se d on

th e m eri ts of a n i de nt ifi cat io n d efen se

.

It is ha rd to reco nc il e ho w Dav is co ul d ha ve be en “ fo cu se d on th e mer i t s o f an

id en ti fic at io n de fen se ” wit ho ut un de rs ta nd in g th e la w of co ns pi racy ge ne ral ly. The

co ur t al so reco gn iz ed Hop p e r was no t in effe ct iv e du rin g ot he r ph as es of th e tri al :

-1 0-“ The reco rd is pl ai n th at Dav is

. . . was fu ll y in fo rm ed ab ou t th e ev id en ce th at wou ld

ha ve be en pr es en te d to su pp or t th e ch arg e at th e ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng .” It si m il arl y

is ha rd to reco nc il e ho w Hop pe r co ul d ha ve “ fu ll y in fo rm ed ” hi m “ ab ou t th e ev id en ce

th at wou ld ha ve be en pr es en te d to su pp or t th e ch arg e” bu t no t clea rly ex pl ai ne d th e

la w of c on sp ira cy

un de rlyin g i t.

Reg ard le ss

, th e fact th at Hop pe r’s c o m m un ic at io n st y le —“ co nv ers at io na l[],

rat io na l[], an d so m et im es rep et it iv e[]—d id no t “ m es h” well wit h Dav is is in su ffi ci en t

to fin d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co u ns el

. Se e Lind ho rs t v. Unit

ed St at es

, 65 8 F.2 d

5 9 8, 60 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (d en y in g 22 55 m ot io n, ack no wled gi ng th at whi le “ th e

at to rn ey co ul d ha ve ex pl ai ne d [th e cas e] in gr eat er de ta il ,” “ th e fai lu re to m or e fu ll y

di sc us s th e cas e do es no t co ns ti tu t e a b r e a c h of th e du ty to act as a reas on ab ly

co m pe te nt att or ne y ”).

Eva lu at in g Hop pe r’s “ co nd uc t

. . . fro m [h is ] p ers pe ct iv e at th e ti m e,”

St ri ck la nd

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 9, Dav is can no t m eet hi s “ he av y bu rd en ” of sh owi ng th at

Hop pe r was i n e f

f e c ti ve in ex pl ai ni ng co ns pi racy la w. Se e DeRo o v. Unit ed St at es

,

22 3 F.3 d 91 9, 92 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). The di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng th e m ot io n on

th is ba si s.

III.

The di st ric t co ur t al so co nc lu de d Hop pe r was in effe ct iv e be cau se he di d no t

co rrec tl y ad vi se Dav is ab ou t t he saf et y -v al ve ex cep ti on to th e m an da to ry m in im um

10 -y ear s e n t en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f). On th e m or ni ng of th e pl ea, Hop pe r

arg ue d th at Dav is ’s cri m in al hi st or y was ov erre pr es en te d, im pl y in g th e sa fet y va lv e

m ay red uc e th e se nt en ce. The di st ric t co ur t d is ag reed :

The Eig ht h C irc ui t ca se law sa y s th at we can ’t fin d o ve rrep res en ta ti on

as a b a s i s t o g e t to th e sa fet y va lv e. And so al l th at ’s g oi ng to ha pp en

on th e sa fet y va lv e an al y si s is we’re g o i ng to go an d co un t th e po in ts

.

-1 1-And it lo ok s to m e li ke he ’s go t fo ur on e-p oi nt of fen se s, an d if he ’s go t

fo ur on e-p oi nt of

fen se s he ’s cert ai nl y go in g to be ou t s i de a Cri m in al

His to ry Cat eg or y I. He’s go in g to be in Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg or y III,

an d so he ’s cl earl y no t sa fet y va lv e el ig ib le if th at al l sc or es up th e way

th at it lo ok s. I m ean

, in whi ch cas e th e m an da to ry m in im um is go in g to

ap pl y

. W ha t he ga i n s th en is si m pl y th e be ne fit of th e two -le ve l

do wnwar d d ep art ur e fo r acc ep ta nc e.

The co ur t su gg es te d Hop pe r an d D a v i s s p e ak wit h th e pr ob at io n of fic er ab ou t hi s

cri m in al hi st or y

. Afte r a fif te en -m in ut e rece ss

, Hop pe r in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at Dav is

st il l wan te d t o p le ad gu il ty.

At th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng

, Dav is te st ifi ed th at ev en aft er th e di st ric t co ur t sa id

he was no t safe ty-val ve el ig ib le

, Hop pe r pr om is ed hi m ot he rwis e. In on e pa rt of it s

or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th is te st im on y cred ib le : “ At th e ev id en ti a r y h e a r in g,

Dav is cred ib ly te st ifi ed th at du rin g th e br e a k H o pp er an d Je ss e Lan ge

, a se ni or

pa rtn er o f Hop pe r’s, to ld hi m th at th ey wou ld ge t AUSA C hr is Myers to acce pt th e

sa fet y -v al ve be cau se th e pr io r of fen se s were m in or .” Late r, ho wev er, th e co ur t no te d

th e te st im on y

was “ di rect ly con tra ry ” to hi s p le a co ll oq uy:

W hi le th e reco rd o f t h e pl ea he ari ng m ak es pl ai n th at Hop pe r was

un in fo rm ed of th e na tu re of the saf et y -v al ve , th e co ur t i nf

or m ed Davi s

th at it was un li ke ly th at he wou ld qu al ify fo r th e sa fet y

- v a l v e

. D a vi s

ad m it te d th at hi s de ci si on to acce pt th e pl ea was to av oi d an in crea se in

th e dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu ta bl e to hi m

. W hi le he no w cl ai m s th at he was

pr om is ed by H o p p e r t ha t Hop pe r wou ld ge t th e pr os ecu to r to ag ree to

sa fet y -v al ve el ig ib il it y

, Dav is ’s co nt en ti on is di rect ly co nt rary to th e

pl ea co ll oq uy whe re he in di cat ed th at no ot he r pr om is e o r t hr eat s ha d

be en m ad e. Hop pe r pr ov id ed effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l du rin g th e

pl ea h eari ng

.

Thu s, it is no t cl ear whe th er Dav is be li ev ed he was sa fet y -v al ve el ig ib le whe n he pl ed

gu il ty. Reg ard le ss

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng Hop pe r de fic ie nt in fai li ng

to ex pl ai n th e sa fet y -v al ve ex cep ti on

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Lang m ad

e

, 23 6 F.3 d 93 1,

-1 2-93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (red u c i n g a de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y ba se d on

ov erre pr es en ta ti on “ do es no t de l e t e cri m in al hi st or y po in ts fo r th e pu rp os es of th e

sa fet y va lv e”).

Bas ed on Hop pe r’s m is un de rs ta nd i n g of th e sa fet y va lv e, th e di st ric t co ur t

or de red th e g ov ern m en t t o re of fer t he fiv e-year pl ea agre em en t. Bu t t he co ur t d oe s

no t ex pl ai n ho w th e sa fet y -v al ve m is un de rs ta nd in g affe ct ed reject io n of th e fiv e-year

de al

. In st ead

, th e co ur t’s an al y si s of th e sa fet y va lv e fo cu se s on ly on th e de ci si on to

pl ead gu il ty to t he ten -y ear d eal rat he r th an pro ceed to tri al :

The reco rd m ak es pl ai n th at Hop pe r was aware th a t D a v i s ’s cri m in al

hi st or y pl aced hi m in a Cat eg or y II or h ig he r. [Ho pp er] was , h owe ve r

op erat in g un de r th e no ti on th at he [Dav is ] co ul d st il l q u a l i f y f or th e

sa fet y -v al ve ex cep ti on be cau se hi s cri m in al hi st or y was ov ers ta te d. The

l a w o f th is ci rcu it ha s lo ng be en th at th e cri m in al hi st or y p o i n t

cal cu la t i o n i s se pa rat e an d di st in ct fro m th e de ci si on th at a pa rti cu la r

d e f e n d a n t’s cri m in al hi st or y is ov ers ta te d. Si m pl y pu t, it ha s be en th e

la w of th is ci rcu it fo r ne arl y two de cad es th at whi le a co ur t is free to fin d

th at th e cri m in al hi st or y is ov ers ta te d— it is no t em po wered to red uc e th e

po in t to ta l fo r pu rp os es of th e sa fet y -v al v e cal cu la ti on

. Thu s, Hop pe r

was en ti rel y m is ta ke n whe n he to ld Dav is th at he co ul d st il l qu al ify fo r

th e sa fet y -v al ve be cau se hi s crim in al hi st or y was o ve rs ta te d. Bas ed

on

th is mis re pr es en ta ti on of th e l a w

, D av is re as on ab ly be li eved th at by

pl ea di ng gu il ty he wo ul d no t be su bj ect to th e te n yea r ma n d a t o r y

min imu m. It is pl ai n fro m th e ch an ge of pl ea hear in g th at as la te as th e

m or ni ng of Ap ril 3, 2 01 3, Dav is be li ev ed th at he wou ld be eli gi bl e fo r

th e sa fet y -v al ve

.

(em ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Dav is si m il arl y fo cu se d o n t he 10 -y ear d eal in arg ui ng th e sa fet y -v al ve is su e

in hi s 2 25 5 m ot io n:

-1 3-Dav is wi ll te st ify at th e he ari ng on hi s Mo ti on th at at to rn ey Hop pe r

ad vi se d hi m on th e m or ni ng of th e s e c o n d d a y of hi s tri al (wh il e in

at to rn ey Hop pe r’s of

fic e) tha t Davi s nee de d to pl ead gu il ty be cau se he

was go in g to lo se

, th at hi s “ na m e was on th e wall ”, bu t th at Dav is wou ld

li ke ly qu al ify fo r th e sa fet y va lv e pr ov i si on un de r th e Fed eral

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, an d th us no t be su bjec te d t o t he m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f te n years.

. . . .

Dav is wil l al so te st ify th at

, ha d he kn own he was go in g to ge t at le as t th e

m in im um m an da to ry ev en i f he pl ed gu il ty, he wou ld ha ve ta ke n hi s

ch an ces wit h a tri al rat he r th an pl ead in g.

In br ie fin g be fo re th is co ur t, Dav is no w as se rts he reject ed th e fiv e-year of fer

be cau se he be li ev ed he was s afet y -v al ve eli gi bl e:

Fo r al l Dav is kn ew, he was sa fet y va lv e el ig ib le reg ard le ss of whe th er

he wen t to tri al

, acce pt ed th e 5- y ear pl ea ag reem en t, or pl ead ed to th e

In di ct m en t jus t as he di d. S im pl e de du ct iv e reas on in g res ul ts in th e

in es cap ab le co nc lu si on th at if Hop pe r di dn ’t un de rs ta nd th e sa fet y va lv e

el ig ib il it y req ui rem en ts whe n h e ad vi se d Dav is to jus t “ an swe r th e

qu es ti on s an d st ic k wit h th e pl e a ” o n A p ril 3, 20 13

, Hop pe r cl earl y

di dn ’t kn ow an y di ffer e n t d u rin g th e earl ie r ti m e fram e of hi m

rep res en ti ng Dav is

. Hop pe r’ s inc or re ct ad vic e cl ea rl y pe rm eat ed Dav is ’s

de ci si on s o n t he pl ea o ffer s.

Bu t th ere is no ev id en ce Hop pe r an d Dav is di sc us se d sa fet y -v al ve re l i e f whe n th e

fiv e-year de al was of

fere d. The sa fet y -v al ve ex c e pt io n is th us no t rel ev an t to hi s

reject io n of th e fiv e-year of fer. Add it io na ll y

, Dav is te st ifi ed he reject ed th e fiv e-year

de al be cau se he be li e v e d h e was in no cen t, no t be cau se he be li ev ed he was sa fet y

va lv e el ig ib le

. Thu s, he can no t sh ow th at bu t fo r t h e mi s l e a d in g ad vi ce, he wou ld

ha ve acce pt ed to th e fiv e-year de al

. Se e Lafl er v. Co op er

, 56 6 U.S. 15 6, 16 3 (2 01 2)

(“ To es ta bl is h St ri ckl an d pr ejud ic e a de fen da nt m us t ‘sho w th at th ere is a reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y th at

, bu t fo r co un se l’s un pr of es si on al erro rs

, th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g

-1 4-wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.’”), qu ot in g St ri ck la nd

, 46 6 U.S. at 69 4; Unit ed St at es v.

Nor vel l

, 72 9 F.3 d 78 8, 79 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), as co rr ect ed (Sep t. 4, 20 13 ) (h ol di ng th at

“ [t]o sh ow pr ejud ic e, th e de fen da nt m us t es ta bl is h th at he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e

pl ea bu t fo r co un se l’s adv ic e” and de fen da nt can no t sh ow a le ga l m is un de rs ta nd in g

pr ejud ic ed hi m whe re co un se l st il l ad vi se d hi m to acce pt th e pl ea) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

At m os t, Hop pe r was de fic ie nt on th e m or ni ng of th e pl ea co ll oq uy, whe n th e

fiv e-year de al was no lo ng er av ai la bl e an d he en co ur ag ed Dav is to acce pt th e te n- y ear

d e a l. The pr op er rem ed y was no t to reo ffer th e fiv e-year de al

. The di st ri c t c o u r t

erre d i n d ire ct in g t he go ve rn m en t t o d o s o.

Fi na ll y

, it is no t cl ear whe th er Dav is was pr ejud ic ed by th e sa fet y -v al ve ad vi ce.

The di st ric t co ur t ex am in ed whe th er, bu t fo r co un se l’s erro ne ou s sa fet y -v al ve ad vi ce,

he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e fiv e-year of fer. Bu t as di sc us se d, th e pr op er in qu iry was

whe th er he wou ld ha ve reject ed th e te n- y ear of fe r a n d pr oc eed ed to tri al ha d he

pr op erl y be en ad vi se d by at to rn ey Hop pe r—a s he was ad vi se d by th e di st ric t co ur t—

th at he was in el ig ib le fo r sa fet y va lv e rel ie f fro m an y ap pl ic ab le m an da to ry m in im um

se nt en ce. The di st ric t co ur t d id no t m ak e a fi nd in g o n t hi s i ss ue

.

Thi s co ur t rem an ds to th e di st ric t co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er Dav is was

pr ejud ic ed by th e sa fet y -v al ve ad vi ce. If pr ejud ic ed

, th e co ur t sh ou ld al lo w Dav is to

wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea an d pr oc eed to tri al

. If no t pr e ju d i c e d

, th e co ur t sh ou ld

di sm is s t he m ot io n.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s v acat ed , and th e cas e rem an de d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-