# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 18 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Jo se Lui s M eza- Lop ez, al so kn own as P ari en te

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

- App el la nt

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 le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ 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 Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 16, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

J o s e Lui s Mez a-Lo pe z ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s 28 U.S.C. 1 § 22 55 m ot io n al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.Mez a-Lo pe z was ch arg ed wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gra m s or m or e of

m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 6 an d co ns pi racy to la un de r m on ey in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (h ). As pa rt of th e c o n sp ira cy , “ Mez a-Lo pe z, an il le ga l al ie n, lo ad ed m et ha m p h e t a mi n e in to cars , of

te n at hi s ho m e in Ph oe ni x, Ariz on a[.]” Uni te d St at es v. Mez a-Lo pe z, 80 8 F.3 d 74 3, 74 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Dru gs

an d dr ug p r oc eed s wou ld be hi dd en in th e cars an d ferr ie d be twee n Ariz on a an d
Neb ras ka . Id.

His pe ti ti on to pl ead gu il ty no te d th at he face d a se nt en ce of 10 y ears t o li fe
im pr is on m en t on th e dr ug co ns pi racy an d up to 20 y ears im pr is on m en t on th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy, se nt en ci ng ran ge s th e go ve rn m en t an d t he m ag is tra te jud ge rei te rat ed at hi s pl ea he ari ng

. Befo re al lo win g Mez a-Lo pe z to en te r hi s pl ea of gu il ty, th e m ag is tra te jud ge qu es ti on ed hi m ab ou t th e fac tu al ba si s u nd erl y in g h is cri m e as
req ui red by Fed. R. Cri m . P. 11 (b )(3 ).

The fact ua l ba si s fo r th e dr ug co ns pi racy ch arg e was pr ov id ed by Mez a-Lo pe z wit ho ut is su e, an d th e m ag is tra te jud ge th en ad dr es se d th e m on ey la un de rin g

co ns pi racy. W he n sh e as ke d if h i d de n co m pa rtments in th e ve hi cl es were us ed to

c o n c e al th e fact th at th e m on ey cam e fro m il le ga l dr ug act iv it y , Mez a-Lo pe z’s

co un se l as ke d fo r ti m e to co nf er wit h Mez a-Lo pe z. His co un se l th en ex pl ai ne d th at
Mez a-Lo pe z di d no t “ feel th at he [co ul d] fai rly an swe r” the qu es ti on

. Pl ea Hr’g Tr.
18 , Dis t. Ct . Dkt . 84 . Even tu al ly, th e m ag is tra te jud ge sai d sh e was “ ge tt in g a li tt le

st uc k” be cau se th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy ch arg e re q u i r e d Mez a-Lo pe z to kn ow th at th e tra ns act io n was de si gn ed to co nc eal th e na tu re of th e pr oc eed s. Pl ea Hr’g Tr. 20 -2 1; see als o C ue ll ar v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 53 U.S. 55 0, 5 62 (20 08 ) (n ot in g th at , fo r a m on ey -la un de rin g ch arg e, th e go ve rn m en t m us t p r ov e th at a de fen da nt kn ows a tra ns act io n is de si gn e d to co nc eal th e na tu re, lo cat io n, so ur ce, own ers hi p,

o r c o n tro l of fu nd s)

. Mez a-Lo pe z’s co un se l ex pl ai ne d th at Mez a-Lo pe z di sp ut e d
kn owi ng th e qu an ti ty of dr ug s or am ou nt of m on ey or whe re in th e ve hi cl e th e m on ey

was co nc eal ed bu t ad m it te d he kn ew dr ug pr oc eed s were hi dd en in th e ve hi cl es an d

-2

-“ no t be in g in tro du c e d p ro pe rly in to co m m erce ” or “ rep or te d an d pu t in a ba nk

acco un t.” Pl ea Hr’g Tr. 23

. The m ag is tra te jud ge co nt in ue d to qu es ti on if th ere was

a su ffi ci en t fact ua l ba si s, no ti ng “ th ere is no th in g il le ga l ab ou t dr iv in g m on ey do wn th e in te rs ta te .” P l e a Hr’g Tr. 2 5. Eve nt ua ll y , t he m ag is tra te jud ge sa id sh e di d no t feel Mez a-Lo pe z ha d ad m it te d su ffi ci en t fact s t o p r ov id e a ba si s fo r th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy ch arg e to al lo w he r to acce pt th e gu il ty pl ea. Sh e th en in vi te d
th e go ve rn m en t t o p r op os e an y ad di ti on al qu es ti on s. The Ass is ta nt Uni te d St at es Att or ne y th en ask ed for an off

-th e-re co rd co nv ers at io n wi th de fen se co un se l.

W he n th e he ari ng res um ed on th e reco rd
, th e m ag is tra te jud ge st at ed
,

“ [C]ou ns el ha s as si st ed m e in un de rs ta nd in g th e fact s of th e cas e a li tt le bi t be tt er so th at I can as k th e q ue st io ns be tt er.” Pl ea Hr’g Tr. 2 9. Sh e th en as ke d Mez a-Lo pe z if th e ve hi cl es co m in g fro m Lin co ln
, Neb ras ka to Ph oe ni x ha d m on ey hi dd en in th em

. He an swe red affi rm at iv el y

. W he n as ke d if he kn ew th e m on ey was hi dd en to av oi d

go ve rn m e n t d e t e c t io n, he ag ai n sa id
, “ Yes .” W he n as ke d if he so ug ht to av oi d

go ve rn m en t de te ct io n be cau se he kn ew th e m on ey was fro m dr ug sa le s, Mez a-Lo pe z

sa id hi s co us in was th e on e who wan te d to av oi d d e te ct io n. The m ag is tra te jud ge th en as ke d if he kn ew th at th e m on ey in th e ve hi cl es was f r o m s e l li ng dr ug s, an d
Mez a-Lo pe z sa id
, “ Yes
, bu t it di d no t be lo ng to m e.” Pl ea Hr’g Tr. 30

. Mez a-Lo pe z th en pl ed gu il ty to th e of

fen se , an d th e m ag is tra te jud ge fo un d th e pl ea to be kn owi ng , in te ll ig en t an d vo lu nt ary wit h a su ffi ci en t fact ua l ba si s

. Sh e reco m m en de d to th e di st ric t co ur t t ha t i t ac cep t M eza- Lop ez’s p le a o f gu il ty.

The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on , acce pt ed
th e gu il ty pl ea, an d se nt en ced Mez a-Lo pe z to 21 0 m on th s in pr is on on each co un t, wit h th e se nt en ces to ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. Afte r an un su c c es sf ul ch al le ng e to th e

su bs ta nt iv e rea so na bl en es s o f hi s s en te nc e o n d ire ct ap pe al , Meza -Lop ez, 8 08 F.3d

a t 7 4 7
, Mez a-Lo pe z ti m el y fil ed a § 22 55 m ot io n al le gi ng m ul ti pl e arg um en ts , in cl ud in g th at hi s co un se l pr ov id ed in e ffec ti ve as si st an ce by ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead

gu il ty to th e m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy ch arg e whe n th e fact s di d no t su pp or t th e

-3

-pl ea an d by fa il in g to ob ject t o t he lac k o f a fac tu al ba si s. Th e d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d
th e m ot io n, fi nd in g t he “ ex te nd ed co ll oq uy” at M eza- Lop ez’s p le a h eari ng res ul te d

no t fro m a la ck of a fact ua l ba si s bu t fro m “ th e Mag i st rat e Ju dg e no t as ki ng th e de fen da nt th e rig ht qu es ti on s— an d pe rh ap s a m or e ge ne ral fai lu re of co m m un ic at io n be twee n th e de fen da nt an d th e Mag is tra te Ju dg e.” Uni te d St at es v. Mez a-Lo pe z, No. 4: 14 -CR- 30 11
, 20 18 W L 17 47 70 3, at *3 (D. Neb

. Apr

. 11
, 20 18 ) (u np ub li sh ed ).
Non et he le ss , th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on th e in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce c l a i m. Mez a-Lo pe z ap pe al s, al le gi ng th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve

reco gn iz ed th at bo th hi s t ria l an d a pp el la te co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo po st co nv ic ti on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s br o u g h t

un de r § 22 55 an d th e un de rlyin g fin di ng s of fact for clea r erro r.” Cal ki ns v. Uni te d
St at es , 79 5 F .3d 89 6, 8 97 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

To pr ov e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, a de fen da nt m us t de m on st rat e bo th
th at hi s at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce “ fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss ”

an d th at he was pr ejud ic ed as a res ul t. St ric k l a nd v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 66 8,
68 7- 88 (1 98 4)

. W e “ m

us t in du lg e 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[.]” Id

. at 68 9. To
de m on st rat e pr ejud ic e in th e gu il ty pl ea co nt ex t, “ th e pe ti ti on er m us t sh ow ‘tha t th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , bu t for cou ns el ’s erro rs , he wou ld no t hav e pl ead ed

gu il ty an d wou ld ha ve in si st ed on go in g to tri al .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Frau st o, 75 4 F.3 d
64 0, 64 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti n g H i l l v

. Lo c kh art , 47 4 U.S. 52
, 59 (1 98 5) ). “ A

reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y is a pr ob ab il it y su ffi ci en t to un de r mi n e co nf id en ce in th e

ou tc om e” or “ a ‘sub st an ti al ,’ no t jus t ‘con cei va bl e,’ li ke li ho od of a di ffer en t res ul t.”
Id

. (q uo ti ng Cu ll en v. Pi nh ol st er, 13 1 S. Ct

. 13 88
, 14 03 (2 01 1) ). “ Co ur ts sh ou ld no t

up se t a pl ea so le ly be cau se of po st ho c as se rti on s fro m a de fen da nt ab ou t ho w he

wou ld ha ve pl ead ed bu t fo r hi s at to rn ey ’s de fic ie nc ie s.” Lee v. Uni te d St at es , 13 7 S.
Ct

. 19 58
, 19 67 ( 2 0 1 7 )

. In st ead
, “ [j] ud ge s sh ou ld

. . . lo ok to co nt em po ran eo us

ev id en ce t o s ub st an ti at e a d efen da nt ’s exp res se d p refe ren ces .” Id

.

-4

-W e fir st ex am in e Mez a-Lo pe z’s cl ai m th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e in

ad vi si ng hi m

to pl ead gu il ty to th e m on ey la un de rin g con sp ira cy ch arg e an d fa il in g
to ch al le ng e th e la ck of a fact ua l ba si s to su pp or t th e gu il ty pl ea. Mez a-Lo pe z arg ue s th ere wer e in su ffi ci en t fact s to in di cat e th at he kn ew th e m on ey in th e v eh ic le s was hi dd en fo r th e pu rp os e of co nc eal in g it s na tu re as th e pr oc eed s of il le ga l act iv it y , as
req ui red to su st ai n a gu il ty pl ea to a m on ey la un de rin g co ns pi racy co un t. See Cu el la r, 55 3 U.S. at 56 7. Mez a-Lo pe z al so arg ue s hi s tri al co un se l co erce d hi m in to pl ead in g
gu il ty by fal se ly t e l l i n g hi m th at , if fo un d gu il ty at tri al
, Mez a-Lo pe z wou ld face

co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es on hi s t wo co un ts

.

“ A gu il ty pl ea is su pp or te d by an ad eq ua te fact ua l ba si s whe n th e re co rd

co nt ai ns su ffi ci en t ev id en ce at th e ti m e of th e pl ea up on whi ch a co ur t m ay

reas on ab ly de te rm in e th at th e de fen da nt li ke ly co m m it te d th e of

fen se .” Uni te d St at es

v. Ch en ey , 57 1 F

. 3 d 7 6 4, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Howev er, we ne ed no t de te rm in e whe th er th e reco rd pr ov id es a s u f f ic ie nt ba si s fo r Mez a-Lo pe z’s gu il ty pl ea. R a t h er, be cau se th e cl ai m on ap pe al is in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l, we m us t de ci de whe th er, whe n Mez a-Lo pe z’s tri a l c ou ns el
ad vi se d hi m to pl ead gu il ty an d di d no t ob ject to th e fact ua l ba si s at th e pl ea he ari ng , th e at to rn ey ’s rep res en ta ti on “ fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas o n a b le ne ss .”
St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at 68 8. W e ho ld th at it di d no t. A reas on ab le at to rn ey c o u l d
ha ve de te r mi n e d th at th e reco rd
, in cl ud in g th e go ve rn m en t’s un co nt es te d ev id en ce

an d Mez a-Lo pe z’s own co ll oq uy wit h th e m ag is tra te jud ge , es ta bl is he d an ad eq ua te fact ua l ba si s fo r Mez a-Lo pe z’s gu il ty pl ea to th e m on ey la un de rin g ch arg e. See
Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 33 1 F.3 d 59 1, 59 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ W e ha ve he ld th at fact s
ga th ered fro m th e pr os ecu to r’s su m m ari zat io n of th e pl ea ag reem en t an d th e la ng ua ge of th e pl ea ag reem en t it se lf, a co ll oq uy be twee n th e de fen da nt an d th e di st ric t co ur t,

an d t he st ip ul at ed fact s be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t are s uf fic ie nt to fin d a fact ua l b as is
fo r a g ui lt y

pl ea.” (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d) ).

-5

-W e al so reject th e cl ai m th at Mez a-Lo pe z pl ed gu il ty du e to im pr op er co erci on fro m hi s tri al co un se l. Tho ug h Mez a-Lo pe z al le ge s hi s co un se l li ed to hi m by st at in g he wou ld rece iv e co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces if he wen t to tri al
, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t th at it is “ un cl ear whe th er th at wou ld ha ve be en accu rat e ad vi ce.” Mez a-Lo pe z, 20 18 W L 1 74 77 03 , a t *3

. Mez a-Lo pe z do es no t a r g u e t ha t hi s co un se l gu aran te ed
hi m a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce by pl ead in g gu il ty. Fu rth erm or e, Mez a-Lo pe z st at ed at hi s pl ea he ari ng th at he was sa ti sf ie d wit h h i s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce an d co nf irmed in

se ve ral in st an ces th at he was en te rin g hi s pl ea v o l u n t a ril y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Payton , 2 60 F.3 d 89 8, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). He was al so in fo rm ed of th e m ax im um

se nt en ce m

ul ti pl e ti m es an d st at ed th at he un de rs to od

. See Uni te d St at es v. Qui ro ga , 55 4 F.3 d 11 50
, 11 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co ll ect in g cas es th at es ta bl is h erro ne ou s ad vi ce fro m co un se l do es no t in va li da te a g u i l t y p l ea “ as lo ng as th e co ur t in fo rm ed th e de fen da nt of hi s m ax im um po ss ib le se nt en ce”)

. Bec a u s e M e za-Lo pe z can no t

es ta bl is h th at hi s at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce “ fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of

reas on ab le ne ss ,” hi s St ric kl an d c la im fai ls . Stri ck la nd , 46 6 U.S. at 68 8.

Mez a-Lo pe z al so cl ai m s th at hi s ap pe ll at e co un se l pr ov id e d in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce by ap pe al in g on ly t h e s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce an d
fai li ng to ap pe al th e al le ge dl y -in su ffi ci en t fact ua l ba si s un de rlyin g hi s gu il ty pl ea to th e m on ey la un de rin g ch arg e. Howev er, ou r “ ap pe ll at e rev ie w is li m it ed to th e is su es
sp eci fie d in th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y .” Cart er v

. H o p k i n s , 1 51 F.3 d 87 2, 87 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on on ly

“ on e is su e”— “ th e d efen da nt ’s cla im th at hi s p le a o f gu il ty to co ns pi racy to l au nd er

m oney res ul te d fro m in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l” —we de cl in e to ad dr es s Me za

Lop ez’s s eco nd arg um en t. Me za-Lo pe z, 20 18 W L 17 47 70 3, at *5

.

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f Mez a-Lo pe z’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n.

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

-6

-