2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-15-2007 

# U SA v . Gon z ale z -R

i ve r a # P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3170

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Gonzalez -R

ive r a #" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1622. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1622

### H o n . R ich ardD . C u d ahy , Un itedS tates S e n i o rC ircu it * 

### Ju d g e f o r th e Un ited S tates C o urt o f Ap p eals f o r th e S e v enth Ci r c ui t , s i tt i ng by

de s i gnat i on. 1 NO T PRECEDEN TI AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 3170 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OS E GONZ AL E Z - RI VE RA , A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 92- cr - 00055 ) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e Jam es T . G i l es A r gued J anuary19, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R E N D E L L , and C U D A H Y , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: February15, 2007)

_____ Pet erA . L evi n ( A r gued) Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 30 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant2

M i chae l A . Schw art z ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 06 A t t or neyforA ppel l ee OP I NI ON SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. T he pr i m aryi s s ue i n t hi s appea l i s w hethertr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornot pur s ui ng a pl ea a gr eementnot w i t hs t andi ng the fa ctthatdefe ndantm ai nt ai ned hi s cl ai m of inn o ce n ce . F o r th e re aso n s stated h ere in, w e a ff irm the d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt re jec tin g th e c laim o f

in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. I. O n February7, 1992, a fe der al gr and j urys i t t i ng i n Phi l adel phi a r eturned an in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g a p p e llan t/d e f e n d a n t Jo se G o n z a lez -R iv e ra w ith c o n sp ira c yto d istri b u te m o re tha n fiv e k il o g ram s o f c o ca ine in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 (C o u n t I ); c o n tin u in g c rim in a l en terp rise in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 (C o u n t II); p o ss e ss io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m o re th a n f iv e k ilo g ra m s o f

c o c a in e in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ai di ng and abe t t i ng i n a cr i m e aga i ns tthe U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2 ( C ount s V and V I ) ; and us e of a comm uni cat i on fac i l i t yt o fac i l i t at e a drug f e lo n yin v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 3 (b ) ( C o u n t V II I) . A ft era fi ve- w eek tr i al , a j ur yconvi ct ed G onzal ez- R i ver a of a l l char ges , and the3

D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to life im p riso n m e n t. G o n z a lez -R iv e ra a p p e a led h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e , ch a llen g in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to s uppr es s cert ai n t ape r ecor di ngs of t el ephone c onver s at i ons obt ai ned bythe FB I pur s uant t o cour tor der . A l t hough w e conc l uded thatone mont h of the thr ee mont hs of t ape rec o rdin g s sh o u ld h av e b ee n su p p resse d d u e to th e G o v ern m en t’ s fa il u re to o ff er a sati sfa ctoryan sw er f

o r i ts de layin se ali n g the tap es, w e a ff irm ed G o n za lez-R ivera ’s convi ct i ons on al l count s beca us e theyw er e notbas ed di r ect l yon conver s at i ons cont ai ned o n th e tap e a t issu e . W e re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt to c o n sid e r w h e th e r, in cal cul at i ng t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes and det erm i ni ng the appr opr i at e s ent ence , ther e w as a n ys ig n if

ic a n c e a tta c h e d to th e s u p p re s s e d ta p e s . D ue t o t he dea t h of the D i s t r i ctJ udge w ho tr i ed the ca s e, the ca s e w as r eas s i gned to a n o th e r D istric t Ju d g e f ro m th e sa m e d istric t. A f ter a y e a r, th e c a se w a s a g a in tr ans ferr ed t o y etanotherD i s t r i ctJ udge w ho vaca t ed G onzal ez- R i ver a’ s l i fe s ent ence aft erfi ndi ng t hatt he amountof coc ai ne forw hi ch G onzal ez- R i ver a w as r es pons i bl e w as 1 4 6 k ilo g ra m s , le s s th a n th e 1 5 0 k ilo g ra m s f o u n d d u ri n g th e o ri g in a l s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . A s a r es ul tof the cha nge, t he gui del i ne r ange w as r educe d t o 360 m ont hs t o l i fe. T he D istric t C o u rt th e n se n ten c e d G o n z a lez -R iv e ra to 3 6 y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. O n a p p e a l, th is c o u rt a f

f ir m e d th e s e n te n c e a n d c o n v ic tio n . G o n z a lez -R iv e ra th e re a f ter f iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief

p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtref u sed to g ran t G o n za lez-R ivera an ev iden ti aryI n hi s appel l at e br i ef, G onzal ez- R i ver a does not ar gue that 1 the D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing h is re q u est fo r an ev iden ti ary hear i ng, and thus w e do notcons i derthati s s ue. 4 hear i ng on hi s habea s pet i t i on and di s m i s s ed the ca s e on the gr ound t hatthe pet i t i on w as l e g a l l y f r i v o l o u s . T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ta l s o d e c l i n e d t o g r a n ta c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty, 1 butthi s cour tgr ant ed s uch a c er t i fi cat e on appe al fr om thator der . G onzal ez- R i ver a now a p p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is h a b e a s p e tit io n p u rsu a n t to o u r c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i t y“w i t h r es pectt o t he appe l l ant ’ s cl ai m thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l i ng t o pur s ue a pl ea a gr eement . ” A pp. at23. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 , 2 2 5 3 , a n d 2 2 5 5 . II. G onzal ez- R i ver a ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yconcl uded thathi s t r i al couns el w as noti neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o pur s ue a pl ea a gr eement . A cl ai m fori neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l is re v iew e d p u rsu a n t to th e tw o -p ro n g e d sta n d a rd se t f o rth in St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) . Fi r s t , a def endantm us ts how that couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand “f el l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s . ” M edi na v. D i gugl i el m o, 461 F. 3d 417, 427- 28 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U . S . at 68 7 -88 ). S ec o n d , the d ef en d an t m u st establish tha t cou n sel’s defici ent per form ance p rej ud i ced h i s defen se. Id. at42 8. A defe nd ant m ayest abli sh p r e j u d i c e b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g “ ‘ t h a tt h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y th a t , b u tf o rc o u n s e l 's u n p ro f e s s io n a l e rr o rs , th e re s u lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. A5

r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yi s a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci entt o underm i ne conf i dence i n t he o u tco m e .’” I d . (q u o tin g S trick lan d , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 4 ). C o u n se l, ho w e v e r, “is stro n g ly pr es um ed t o have r ender ed ade quat e as s i s t ance and made al l s i gni fi cantdeci s i ons i n the e x e rc is e o f

re a s o n a b le p ro f

e s s io n a l ju d g m e n t.” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 . I n s uppor tof hi s pos i t i on, G onzal ez- R i ver a r el i es pr i m ar i l yon a dec i s i on of one d is tr ic t c o u rt f

ro m th is c ir c u it, U n ite d S ta te s v . T u rc h i, 6 4 5 F . S u p p . 5 5 8 (E .D . P a . 1 9 8 6 ). T ur chi , how ever , does nots uppor tt he cl ai m of G onzal ez- R i ver a. I n T ur chi , the defe ndantm ai nt ai ned hi s i nnocenc e and de ni ed i nvol vementi n anyof the cr i m es char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent . I d. at567. D efe ndant ’ s at t orney“bel i eved thatthe governm ent ’ s chi ef w i tnes s . . . w as nott el l i ng t he trut h, that[couns el ] w oul d be abl e t o demonstr at e thi s , t hat the j ur yw oul d fi nd [the w i t nes s ] i ncr edi bl e and be l i eve thati tw as i ns t ead he w ho had comm i t t ed the ar s ons , and thatt he governm ent ’ s cas e w as w eak a nd w oul d be uns ucce s s ful . ” I d. at568. T he Turc hi cour tr ej ect ed the cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , expl ai ni ng t hat“[a ] n at t or neyi s notobl i gat ed t o i ni t i at e pl ea di s cus s i ons w i th t he governm enti n everycas e. ” I d. at567. T he courtconcl uded thatcouns el ’ s “pur s ui tof a comm on defe ns e and f

ai l ur e t o r ecomm end a gui l t ypl ea w as pr ofes s i onal l yr eas onabl e at th e tim e a n d is e n title d to d e f e re n c e .” Id . a t 5 6 8 . T he ar gum entt hatG onzal ez- R i ver a makes bas ed on Turc hi i s obl i que, t o s ayt he l eas t . H e r ecogni zes t hati n T ur chi defe ns e couns el bel i eved hi s cl i entw as i nnocentand that the G o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce co u ld b e d iscred it ed at tri al, b u t no n ethe less the c o u rt6

found thatcouns el w as noti neff ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o i ni t i at e a pl ea a gr eementdi s cus s i on. G onzal ez- R i ver a ar gues t hat , i n contr as t , hi s couns el has notr epr es ent ed thathe bel i eved G o n za lez-R ivera w as in n o ce n t, an d h is co u n sel h as n o t sug g ested that the G o v ern m en t’ s evi dence , al t hough i ncons i s t ent , w as as w eak a s thati n T ur chi . Fr om thes e di s t i ngui s hi ng fac t s , he ar gues t hathi s couns el s houl d have i ni t i at ed pl ea a gr eementdi s cus s i ons w i t h t he G overnm ent . W e ar e notper s uaded. G onzal ez- R i ver a’ s at t or neyaverr ed thathe bel i eves thathe couns el ed G onzal ezR i ver a – as he does habi tual l yw i t h al l hi s cl i ent s – thathe had the opt i on of a gui l t ypl ea w i thoutcooper at i on, a gui l t ypl ea w i t h cooper at i on, ora tr i al . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. B oot h, 432 F. 3d 542, 550 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng thatdi s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng defe ndant ’ s habea s pet i t i on w i t houthol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng w her e def endanthad

“ ra ise d su f

f icie n t alle g a tio n s th a t h is tria l co u n se l d e p riv e d h im o f th e o p p o rtu n ityto m a k e a re a so n a b lyin f

o rm e d d e c isio n re g a rd in g w h e th e r to c h a n g e h is p lea o r p ro c e e d to tr ial b ec au se h is tri al co u n sel fa il ed to inf o rm h im that h e c o u ld en ter an o p en p lea” ). In couns el ’ s aff

i davi t , he expl ai ned thathe di d noti ni t i at e pl ea ne got i at i ons w i t h t he G overnm enti n t hi s cas e bec aus e G onzal ez- R i ver a “s t at ed thathe w as i nnocentand w an ted to p roc ee d to tr ial . ” A p p . at 33 . B ase d o n co u n sel’s st atem en t, the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatcouns el had no opt i on butt o pr ocee d t o t r i al beca us e the i ni t i at i on of pl ea di s cus s i ons notauthor i zed bya cl i entm ai nt ai ni ng hi s i nnocenc e w oul d have be en frui t l es s . W e agr ee. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd thatcouns el ’ s deci s i on nott o pur s ue a pl ea7

agr eementi n t hi s cas e di d notfal l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s under S tr ic k la n d . A s s um i ng ar guendo thatG onzal ez- R i ver a’ s couns el w as defi ci ent , G onzal ezR i ver a has nevert hel es s fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatpr ej udi ce r es ul t ed. I n B oot h, 432 F. 3d at543, the G overnm enti ndi ct ed def endanton t w o count s . Pr i ort o t r i al , the G overnm ent and the def

endant ’ s t r i al couns el ent er ed i nt o pl ea ne got i at i ons . I d. at544. T he pl ea negot i at i ons fai l ed, how ever , beca us e the G overnm entr equi r ed thatdefe ndantpr offe r i nform at i on r egar di ng notonl yhi s i nvol vementi n t he cr i m e, butal s o t he i nvol vementof o th e rs . D e f

e n d a n t d id n o t w a n t to c o o p e ra te a g a in s t a n y o n e e ls e in v o lv e d in th e c ri m e . Id . T h e c a se th e n p ro c e e d e d to a ju rytrial, a n d d e f e n d a n t w a s s u b se q u e n tlyf o u n d g u ilty a s to b o th c o u n ts . Id . D efe ndantm oved t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, ar gui ng t hat hi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nform hi m thathe coul d ent eran open gui l typl ea t o bot h count s of the i ndi ctm ent , w hi ch l i kel yw oul d have r es ul t ed i n a thr eel evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . I d. at548. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the m ot i on w i t houthol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he gr ound t hatB oot h’ s tr i al couns el

“ a d e q u a telya d v ise d h im o f th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f

h is p lea d e c isio n s b e c a u se h e f u lly in f o rm e d B o o th o f

a ll p lea n e g o tiatio n s w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t.” Id . at 5 4 5 . O n a p p e a l, thi s courtr ever s ed, concl udi ng, bas ed upon the al l egat i ons i n defe ndant ’ s habea s pet i t i on, thathe “w oul d have trut hful l yadmi t t ed the conduc tcompri s i ng count s one and tw o and8

anyaddi t i onal r el evantconduct ” and a ccor di ngl y“w oul d have l i kel yr ece i ved a thr eel evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y ” had he chos en nott o pr ocee d t o t r i al . I d. a t 5 4 8 . T he fa ct s of B oot h ar e di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the fa ct s of thi s cas e. G onzal ezR i ver a mai nt ai ned hi s i nnocenc e thr oughoutthes e pr ocee di ngs and ther efor e w as not w i l l i ng, as w as B oot h, t o pl ead gui l t yt o t he cha r ges agai ns thi m . T he pr ej udi ce that r es ul t ed t o B oot h s t emm ed fr om hi s w i l l i ngnes s t o pl ead gui l t yt o t he cha r ges , coupl ed w i th hi s couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o i nform hi m thathe had a n opt i on of pl eadi ng open, w hi ch w oul d have l i kel ypr ovi ded hi m w i th a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yw i t houtt es t i fy i ng agai ns tot her s . G onzal ez- R i ver a, how ever , m ai nt ai ned hi s i nnocenc e and hi s couns el , unl i ke couns el i n B ooth, advi s ed hi m off a l l thr ee opt i ons – a gui l typl ea w i t houtcooper at i on, a gui l t ypl ea w i t h cooper at i on, ora tr i al . I tw as G o n z a lez -R iv e ra ’s r e f

u sa l to c o n sid e r a p lea th a t re su lted in h is a tto rn e y ’s d e c isio n n o t to in itia te p le a n e g o tia tio n s w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. G onzal ez- R i ver a ar gues s um m ar i l ythathe w oul d have a cce pt ed a pl ea a gr eement an d that there is a reas o n ab le pro b ab il itythat h is sen tenc e w o u ld h av e b ee n m o re favor abl e had he pur s ued a pl ea a gr eement . T he al l eged pr ej udi ce thathe mayhave su f f e re d a s a re su lt i s f

a r to o sp e c u lativ e . G o n z a lez -R iv e ra ’s c o n ten tio n th a t h e w o u ld have a cce pt ed a gui l t ypl ea i s bel i ed bythe evi dence bel ow . Fur t herm or e, i n t hi s cas e, unl i ke B oot h, G onzal ez- R i ver a has notpoi nt ed t o anys peci fi c bene fi tthathe w oul d have9

r ece i ved forhi s pl ea. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e G onzal ez- R i ver a has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h that he w oul d have l i kel yr ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence butforhi s at t orney ’ s al l eged i neff ect i venes s , G onzal ez- R i ver a has notes t abl i s hed pr ej udi ce. III . B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

______________________