2005 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

12-29-2005 

# U SA v . B o oth

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3893

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Booth" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 5. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/5P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 03- 3893

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BR I AN B OOT H,
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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 98- cr - 00322) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M

. M unl ey

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber6, 2005
Be f o r e : REN DELL, FI SHER a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed D ece m ber29, 2005)2 T i na Schnei der 44 E xchange St r eet , Sui t e 201 Por t l and, M E 04101 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant
J ames T. C l ancy O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 228 W al nutSt r eet 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use P. O

. B ox 11754 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. B r i an B oot h appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC ou rt ’s dec i s i on deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence br oughtpur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . B o o th w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo n tw o c o u n ts r el at i ng t o hi s r ol e i n s et t ing o ff a pi pe bomb at an apa r t m ent bui l di ng. B oot h cont ends t hat h is tri al couns el – aw ar e of the s ubs t ant i al evi dence agai ns tB oot h and thatB oot h di d notw ant to cooper at e w i t h t he G overnm ent– r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el bynoti nfor m i ng B oot h t hathe coul d have ent er ed an “ open” gui l t y pl ea t o bot h count s w i t houtpr ocee di ng t o t r i al , p o te nt i al l yent i t l i ng hi m t o a thr ee- l evel r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yundert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ngA n “open” gui l t ypl ea i s a pl ea m ade byt he def endant 1
w it h o u t the benef

i tof a pl ea a gr eementent er ed i nt o w i t h t he G o v e rn m e n t. See , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. C as i ano , 113 F. 3d 420, 4 2 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). 3 G u id e lin e s. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t B o o th ’s m o tio n se t f o rth 1 su f f icie n t alle g a tio n s to re q u ire a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g , w e w ill vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand rem and foran evident i aryheari ng on t he m eri t s of B oo t h’s cl ai m s. I.
E ar l yi n t h e morn i n g o f M a y1 5 , 1 9 9 8 , s i mul t a n e o us expl os i ons fr om t w o pi pe bom bs r ocked a m ul t i

- uni t r en ta l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n s yl v a n i a . F o r tu n a t e l y, none of the s even s l eepi ng r es i dent s i ns i de the apa r t m ent bui l di n g w as i nj ur ed. T he bl as t , how ever , caus ed s i gni fi cant pr oper t y damage. A n i nves t i gat i on fol l ow i ng t he i n cident r evea l ed thatt he pi pe bombs, w hi ch w er e made outof coppe r pi p es and pac ked w i t h s m okel es s pow der , had bee n pl ace d on t he r earki t chen door an d the fr onts i de doorof the bui l di ng. A ddi t i onal evi d ence uncove r ed dur i ng the i nves t i gat i on overw hel m i ngl yes t abl i s hed that B oot h w as r es pons i bl e fort he exp l osi on s. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e Go v e r n me n ti n d i c t e d Bo o t h o n t wo count s . C ountone cha r ged B oot h w i t h m al i ci ous l ydamagi ng by expl os i ves pr oper t yaff

ect i ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce, i n vi ol at i on o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (i). C o u n t tw o c h a rg e d B o o th w ithF iv e p rim a ryw itn e ss e s te stif ied a g a in st B o o th a t trial. 2 Vi n c e n tLi p a r i , wh o l i v e d a t t h e a p a r t me n tb u i l d i n g a tt h e t i me 4 p o ss e ss io n o f

a n u n re g iste re d f

ire a rm in th e f

o rm o f a b o m b , in vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 5841, 5861( d) , and 5871.
Pr i ort o t r i al , t he G overnm ent and B oot h’ s t r i al couns el ent er ed i nt o pl ea ne got i at i ons . T he G o v ern m ent ’ s i ni t i al pl ea offe rw as fo r B o o t h t o pl ead gui l t yt o countone of the i nd i ct m ent. In exch ang e, th e G o vernm ent offered t o d i sm i ss countt w o of the i n d ict m ent , r ecomm end thatB oot h be s ent enc e d t o t h e ma n d a t o r ymi n i mum s e n t e n c e o f 6 0 mon t hs im p ri so n m en t, an d p o ssiblyb ri n g a m o tio n fo r do w n w ard departur e pur s uantt o 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553( e) i f i tdet erm i ned that B oot h rende r ed s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance i n t he i nves t i gat i on of a p o ss ib le c o -d e f

e n d a n t.
B oot h r ej ect ed the G overnm ent ’ s pl ea of ferand made a c o u n ter -o f

f e r to p le a d g u iltyto c o u n t tw o o f th e in d ictm e n t in excha nge fort he G overnm ent ’ s di s m i s s al of countone. T he G overnm enti nfor m ed B oot h’ s couns el t hat itw oul d cons i der t he pl ea t o t he l es s erchar ge onl yi f B oot h w oul d gi ve a pr offe r conce r ni ng hi s ow n cul pabi l i t y and t he cr i m i nal i nvol vement of an y ot herpar t i ci pant s i nvol ved i n t he bombi ng. B oot h bal ked att he p roposal becau se he did n o t w a n tt o co op erat e against any one el s e i nvol ved i n t he cr i m e. B e c a u se th e p a r tie s c o u ld n o t ag re e o n a n a c c e p tab le r es ol ut i on of the cha r ges , B oot h pr ocee ded t o a j ur yt r i al

. T he j urysubsequ entl yfou nd B oo t h g uil t yof b oth charges. 2o f th e e x p lo sio n , tes tifie d th a t h e h a d a c o n f ro n tatio n w ith B o o th o n th e p re v io u s e v e n in g o v e r $ 4 0 .0 0 th a t B o o th o w e d to L ip a ri. B r i an P eter s t es t i fi ed thatB oot h t ol d hi m t hathe had a n ar gum entw i t h a coupl e of f r at erni t ybr ot her s w h o li v ed att he apart m ent

. Pet er s fur t hert es t i fi ed thatB oot h told h im t hathe lat er w en tback t o t he pr oper t yand pl ace d a pi pe bomb on t he fr ontdoorof the hous e, and t hatB oot h’ s r oom m at e pl ace d t he s e c o n d p i p e b o mb o n t h e b a c k d o o r . Aar o n Ta y l o r , a f o r mer m i ddl e s chool and h igh s chool cl as s m at e of Boot h’ s , t es t i fi ed t h a tBo o t h t o l d h i m th a t h e k n e w h o w t o c o n s t ru c ta p i p e b o mb i n a sho rtam ou nt of t i m e. M ichael Padu l a, a stud ent atE ast S tr o u d sb u rg U n iversity w h o h ad k n o w n B o o th sinc e the yw ere i n t he s eventh gr ade t ogether , t es t i fi ed thatB oot h t ol d hi m t hat he had an al t er cat i on w i t h L i par i

. W hen t he t w o b egan d isc u ss in g th e b o m b in g a t 2 0 2 M a in S tre e t, B o o th sa id to P a d u la , “ yo u k n o w , w e ll, I d id th a t.” F in a lly, Ja s o n C ra te r, a l ong-t i m e fr i end of Boot h’ s , t es t i fi ed thatB oot h t ol d hi m on M ay15, 1998, t hat“he ha d a pr obl em w i t h t hem peopl e i n t hat hous e l as tni ght , and thathe had a pi pe bomb an d puti tunder th e irp o rc h .” B oot h w as s ent ence d undert h e 1 9 9 8 ver s i on of the 3 S e n te n c in g G u i d e lin e s . See U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC ING 5 A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned t hatB oot h’ s s ent enci ng r ange unde rt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w as 7 8 to 9 7 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d B oot h t o concurr ent90- m ont h s ent ence s of i m pr i s o n me n t , c o n c u rr e n tth r e e - y e a rt e rms o f s u p ervi s ed r el eas e, a n d re stitu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 ,0 5 2

. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id

3G UI DEL INES § 1 B 1

. 1 1 (b)(1 ) (20 0 0 ). 6 notconsi dera dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t ypur s uantt o s ect i on § 3E 1. 1 of the S en tenci ng G ui del i nes beca us e B oot h had pr ocee ded t o t r i al and cha l l enged hi s gui l t

. W e af

fi r m ed t he j udgm ent of convi ct i on on M ar ch 14, 2001.
O n J une 13, 2002, B oot h fi l ed a pro se m o tio n to v a c a te h is s e n ten c e p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . B o o th a lleg e d in h is m oti on t hat his t ri al cou nsel , aw are t hat t he evi den ce aga i nst B o o th w as ov erw helm i ng and t hat B oo t h di d not w ant t o cooper ate w i t h t he G overnm ent , di d noti nfor m B ooth t hathe coul d have en tered an open gui l t ypl ea t o bot h count s of the i ndi ctm ent , l i kel yent i t l i ng hi m t o a thr ee- l evel r educt i on for a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty . R e sp o n d in g to B o o th ’s m o tio n to vacate s ent ence , t he G overnm entar gued that“ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yw as notan opt i on i n [B oot h’ s ] cas e bec aus e of the m and at ory m i nim um sent ence a pp l i cable t o the charge ag ai nst hi m . ” I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Gov e r n me n ts t a t e d t h a tBoo t h ’ s t r i al couns el “ful l yadvi s ed Pet i t i onerof hi s pl ea opt i ons , ” and that B o o th ’s “ b e lief th a t h e c o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a m o re f a v o ra b le p le a re s o lu tio n is a p ip e d re a m .”
T he G overnm ent ’ s r es pons e rel ied pr i m ar i l yupon a decl ar at i on fr om B oot h’ s t r i al co u n s el

. T hatdecl ar at i on corr obor at es t he hi s t or yof pl ea ne got i at i ons betw een Boot h and t he G overnm entand s t at es t hat B oot h had t ol d hi s t r i al couns el t h a t “ h e c o u l d n o t a c c e p t t h e t e r m s o f t h e p r o f f e rl e t t e r , n a m e l y, cooper at i ng agai ns tany one el s e i nvol ved”:7 B oot h w as advi s ed bym e of the pr oces s byw hi ch he coul d obt ai n a re duct i on i n t he s ent ence he w as fac i ng. H e chos e nott o acc eptt he term s of the p ro f f e r le tter, o r, m o re sp e c if ica lly , to a ttem p t to r enders ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o t he G overnm ent byt el l i ng t hem ever y t hi ng he knew aboutt he cr i m es and w ho w as i nvol ved.
T h e d e c lar a tio n a lso sta tes th a t B o o th w a s in f o r m e d o f

a ll p o ssible de fens es and mi t i gat i ng fac t or s t hatw er e ava i l abl e at s ent enci ng, and that B oot h w as i nfor m ed of the “e xt ens i ve fa ctua l inv esti g ati o n ” c o n d u cted b yh is tri al co u n sel’s i nves t i g at or . N ot abl yabs entfr om the dec l ar at i on, how ever , w as a n yin d ica tio n th a t B o o th ’s trial c o u n se l h a d d isc u ss e d w ith B oot h t he opt i on of ent er i ng an open pl ea t o count s one and tw o. O n Ju ly1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied B o o th’s m ot i o n wi t h o u th o l d i n g a n e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g . Th e Di s t r i ct C our tconcl uded thatB oot h’ s t r i al couns el adequat elyadvi s ed 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 le a n e g o tiatio n s w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt c h a ra c ter ize d B o o th ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e c o u ld have r ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence byent er i n g an open pl ea a s “hi ghl ys pecul at i ve. ” T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thatB oot h had t he oppor tuni t yfora l es s ers ent ence atcount t w o of the i ndi ctm ent , t hathe had been a w ar e of the “c os t s of thatopt i on” ( i

. e. , co o p erat i ng agai ns ta pos s i bl e co- defe ndant ) , and thathe h a d re je c te d th e o p tio n a n d g o n e to trial b e c a u se “ th o se c o sts w er e nott o hi s l i ki ng. ” The D i s t r i ct C o u rt fur t herdet erm i ned t hatB oot h w as r equi r ed t o go t o t r i al on bot h count s beca us e he c h o se n o t to a c c e p t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s p lea o f f e r to p lea d g u ilty8 t o countt w o. T he D i s t r ict C our tul t i m at el yconcl uded that B oot h’ s ar gum entt hat he coul d have r ece i ved a l i ght ers ent ence w as fut i l e bec aus e “[ e] ven i f he co u ld ha ve r ece i ved a l i ght er s ent ence forC ountII , hi s s ent ence forC ountI r emai ns at90 m o n th s .”
II.
B oot h appea l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o v a c a t e s e n t e n c e , a n d w e g r a n t e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Bo o t h ’ s a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2253. W e r evi ew the D is t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o denyan evi dent i aryhear i ng on a m ot i on t o vaca t e sent ence forabus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. McC oy , 4 1 0 F

. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ).
III

. A l t hough a di s t r i ctcour thas di s cr et i on w hethert o or der a hear i ng w hen a defe ndantbr i ngs a mot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 2255 , o urcas el aw has i m pos ed l i m i t at i ons on t he exe r ci s e of thatdi s cr et i on. I n consi d ering a m ot i on t o vaca t e a defe ndant ’ s s ent ence , “the cour t m us tacc ept the truth o f th e m o v a n t’ s fa ctua l al lega ti o n s u n less theyare c le a rl yf

ri v o lo u s o n t h e b a s is o f th e e x is tin g re c o rd .” G o v e rn m e n t o

f th e V irg in Isla n d

s v . Fo rte , 865 F. 2d 59, 62 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ). See als o R. G OV ER NING § 2255 C ASES R. 4( b)

. T he dis t ri ctcou rti s r equ i red t o h old an ev i den t i aryheari ng “un l ess th e m o tio n a n d f

iles a n d re c o rd s o f

th e c a se sh o w c o n c lu siv e ly t h at th e m ovanti s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” I d. W e have char act er i zed thi s s t andar d as cr eat i ng a “r eas onabl yl ow9 t hr es hol d for habea s pet i t i oner s t o m eet

. ” McC oy , 410 F. 3d at 134 ( quot i ng P hil l i

ps v. W oo dford , 2 6 7 F

. 3 d 9 6 6 , 9 7 3 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 )). T h u s, th e d istric t c o u rt a b u se s its d isc re tio n if it fa ils to hol d an evi dent i ary h ea ri n g w hen the fi l es and r ecor ds of the c a se a re in c o n c lu siv e a s t o w h e th e r th e m o v a n t is e n tit led to reli ef

. I d. a t 1 3 1 , 1 3 4 (“ If

[ th e ] p e tit io n a lleg e [ s] a n yf a c ts w arr ant i ng r el i ef unde r§ 2255 t hatar e notcl ear l yr es ol v ed by t he r ecor d, t he D i s t r i ctC our t[i s ] o b li gat ed t o fol l ow t he statu torym an d ate to h o ld an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g . ”).
I n thi s cas e, B oot h al l eges t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve bec aus e he f

ai l ed t o i nfor m B oot h of al l pos s i bl e pl ea o p ti o n s to re s o lve h is cri m inal ca se a n d en ti tl e h im to a m o re favor abl e s ent ence . I n or der t o det erm i ne w hether B oot h’ s t r i al c o u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyin e f f e c tiv e u n d e r th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, w e m u st a p p lyth e f a m ili a r sta n d a rd d e v e lo p e d in Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d i t s p r o g e n y. U ndert hats t andar d, a cr i m i nal defe ndant m aydemonst r at e that hi s r epr es ent at i on w as cons t i tut i onal l yi nadequa t e bypr ovi ng: (1 ) t h a t h is a tto rn e y ’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t, i.e ., u n reas onabl e underpr evai l i ng pr ofes s i onal s t andar ds ; and ( 2) th a t h e w a s p re

ju d ic e d b yth e a tto rn e y ’s p e rf o rm a n c e . Fo rte , 865 F. 2d at62 ( ci t i ng Str i ckland , 466 U

. S. at687, 694)

. U nder t he fi r s t pr ong, “[j ] udi ci al s crut i ny . . . i s hi ghl ydefe r ent i al , ” and co u rt s “m u st i n d u lge a str o n g p resu m p ti o n that co u n sel’s conductf

a l l s wi t h i n t h e wi d e r a n g e o f r e a s o n a b l e p r o f

e s s i o n al as s i s t ance . ” Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S

. a t 6 8 8 -8 9 . In o rd e r to est abli sh prej ud i ce, t he d efen dan tm ustprove that“t here i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s u n p rofe s s i onal 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.” I d. a t 6 9 4 . W e h a v e e n d o rse d th e p ra c tica l su g g e stio n inIn d e e d , as se t f o r th b e lo w , the p ra c tica l su g g e stio n to 4 cons i deri ni t i al l yt he pre j udi ce pr ong i s par t i cul ar l ycompel l i ng i n t hi s cas e w her e ourexami nat i on of the pr ej udi ce pr ong hel ps in f o rm o u r in q u iryinto th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

B o o th ’s tria l co u n se l. I n Hill , t he C our t det erm i ned t hat t he def endantw as not 5 pr ej udi ced be caus e he fai l ed t o al l ege i n hi s habea s pet i t i on t hat 10 Str i ckland

t o cons i der t he pre

j udi ce pr ong befor e exa m i ni ng t he p e rf o rm a n c e o f c o u n se l p ro n g “ b e c a u se th is c o u rse o f a c tio n is l es s bur dens om e t o defe ns e couns el

. ” McC oy , 410 F. 3d at132 n .6 ; s ee Str i ckland , 466 U

. S. at694 ( s t at i ng t hat , “[i ] f i t i s eas i er t o di s pos e of an i neff

ect i venes s cl ai m on t he gr ound of l ack of s uffi ci entpr ej udi ce, w h ich w e expe ctw i l l oft en be s o, ” the pr ej udi ce pr ong s houl d be exa m i ned bef or e the per for m ance prong “t o en sure that i neff ect i ven ess cl ai m s d o n ot becom e so b u r d e n s o me t o d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l t h a t t h e e n t i r e c r i mi n a l j us t i ce sy stem su ff

ers a s a re su lt ”). 4

A . P rej udi ce I n Hillv . Lo ckha rt , 4 7 4 U. S

. 5 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e S u p r e me C our t hel d t hat the Str i ckland t es tappl i es t o advi ce gi ven by c o u n s e l in th e c o n te x t o f g u ilty p le a d is c u s s io n s . See i d. at58 ( s t at ing t hat“the Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on tes t ap p lies to chal l enges t o gui l t ypl eas bas ed on i neffec ti ve as s i s t ance of couns el ”)

. T he C our tdet erm i ned t hat t he pr ej udi ce pr ong i n t he co n text o f th e p lea p roc ess “ fo c u ses o n w h ethe r co u n sel’s cons t i tu t i o n a l l yi n e f

f e c t i ve per for m ance aff

ect ed the out come of t he pl ea pr oces s . ” I

d. at58. T hus , undert he pr ej udi ce pr ong,

5“ h a d c o u n se l c o rre c tly in f o rm e d h im a b o u t h is pa ro le e lig ib ili ty d a te, he w o u ld h a v e p lea d e d n o t g u iltya n d in sis ted o n g o in g to t r i al

. ” Hill , 474 U

. S. at60. T h e G o v ern m en t d o es no t arg u e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt 6
w oul d have ha d a bas i s t o r ej ectan open pl ea t o count s one and t w o i n t hi s cas e. I n fac t , t he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entpr ocee ds on t he as s um pt i on t hata pl ea w oul d have be en ac cept ed byt he cour t , butt hatB oot h w oul d nothave be en pr ej udi ced s i n ce he coul d not have “r ece i ved t he benef i t of a r educt i on for acc ept a n ce of

r es pons i bi l i t ybeca us e of the mandat or ym i ni m um s e n te n c e a tta c h e d to th e c ri m e h e c o m m itte d .” 11 B oot h m us t demonst r at e that , butforhi s t r i al at t or ney ’ s al l eged i neff ect i venes s , he w oul d have l i kel yr ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence . T he G ov ernm entdi s put es t hatB oot h w oul d have r ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence beca us e “the re cor d s how s t hatt r i al co u n sel, alon g w ith the p rose cu tor an d the p rob ati o n o ff icer, es t i m at ed thatt he D efe ndantw oul d nothave r ece i ved the ben efi tof a redu ct i on for acceptance of res po nsi bil i t ybeca use of the mi ni m um m andat or ys ent ence at t ache d t o the cr i m e he comm i tt ed. ” The G ov ern m en t, h o w ev er, erron eo u slyfo cu s es on w hatB o ot h’ s gui del i ne off ens e l evel w oul d have be en had he ent er ed an ope n pl ea so lely t o count o ne. T he G overnm ent as s er t s that, h ad B oot h pl ed gui l t yt o countone and r ece i ved a t hr ee- l evel red u cti on, he w oul d have be en s ubj ectt o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 60 m ont hs

. T h e G overnm ent ’ s ar gum ent 6 i gnor es t hat B oot h w as s ubj ectt o tw o c o u n ts o f a n in d ictm e n t,12 and, abs enta pl ea a gr eem ent , t he G overnm entw oul d nothave vol unt ar i l ydeci ded t o di s m i s s t he cha r ges atcountt w o. In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u r t se n ten c e d B o o th to concurr e n t9 0

- mon t h s e n t e n c e s o f i mpr i s o n me n t

. Ba s e d u p on an off ens e l evel o f 2 6 ( beca us e the tw o cr i m es w er e gr ouped t ogetherpur s uantt o s ect i ons 3D 1. 1 t hr ough 3D 1. 5 of the S en tenc ing G u idelines ) an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca teg o ry o f III, B oot h’ s gui del i ne off ens e l evel w as 78 t o 97 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent

. A ssum i ng t hatB oot h w oul d have r ece i ved a th re e -le v e l re d u c tio n f

o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty , h e w o u ld hav e been subjectt o a g u i deli ne rang e of 5 7 to 71 m on t hs; how ever , beca us e t he st atut or y m i ni m um s ent ence atcountone w as 60 m ont hs , t he gui del i ne r ange w o u ld h av e been 60 t o 71 m o n th s im p ri so n m e n t. U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC I NG G UI DEL INES § 5G 1. 1( c)

. T hus , t he G overnm ent ’ s m athemat i cal cal cul at ion s i gnor e the r eal i t yof w hatactual l yw oul d have happen ed had Boot h ent er ed an ope n pl ea t o count s one and t w o. B eca us e B oot h w as actual l ys ent ence d t o 90 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , he ar guabl yr ece i ved a sent ence of 19 t o 30 m ont hs gr eat ert han w hathe w oul d have r ece i ved had he ent er ed an open pl ea t o count s one and tw o. T he G overnm ent addi t i onal l yar gues t hatB oot h w as not pr e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e a g u i l t yp l e a d o e s n o te n t i t l e a c r i m i nal defe ndantt o a thr ee- l evel adj us t m ent fo racc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yundert he Sent enci ng G u idel i nes as a mat t erofC o n tra ryto th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a p p a re n t a rg u m e n t, 7 n o th in g in th e la n g u a g e o r a p p l i c a tio n n o te s to s e c tio n 3 E 1 .1 pr ovi des t hat cour t s ar e pre cl uded fr om fi ndi ng t hata def endant q u a lifie s f

o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty if th e re d u c tio n w o u ld d rop the d ef

en d an t’ s sen tenc ing ran g e b elow the s tatu tory m i ni m um s ent ence . T her e i s a g o o d rea s on fort hi s : t he S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s h a v e a b u ilt -in sa f e g u a rd to p re v e n t a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e f

ro m d ro p p in g b e lo w th e a p p lica b le sta tu to rym in im u m se n ten c e . S e c tio n 5 G 1 .1 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t, “[w ] her e a s t atuto r i l yauthor i zed mi ni m um s ent ence i s gr eat er t han the maxi m um of the appl i cabl e g u ideli ne r ange, t he s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um s ent ence s hal l be the guidel i ne s e n t e n c e . ” U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC I NG G UI DEL INES § 5 G 1 .1 (b )

. T h u s, if

B o o th w o u ld h a v e p led g u iltyso lelyto count o n e pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , B oot h coul d have r e c e i v e d a t h r e e - l e v e l r e d u c t i o n f o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. I n t hatevent , B oot h’ s s t atut or y m i ni m um s ent ence w oul d have been gr eat ert han hi s pos s i bl e gui del i ne s ent ence , and the 60- m ont h s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence w oul d hav e been the g u ideline s en tenc e p u rsua n t t o sec ti o n 5 G 1

. 1 (b). 13 ri g h t. See U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES § 3 E 1 .1 cm t. n . 3 (19 9 8 ). 7
U ndersect i on 3E 1. 1( a) of the 1998 Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , a def

endantw ho “cl ear l ydemonst r at es acc ept ance of respon si bil i t yfor his off ense” i s ent i t l ed to hav e his off ense le v e l d e c re a s e d b ytw o l e v e l s . U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES § 3 E 1 .1 (a ) (1 9 9 8 ). A d e f e n d a n t m a y h a v e h is offe ns e l evel decr eas ed by one addi t i onal l evel i f: t he def endantW e have s t at ed thatan appl i cat i on not e t o t he 8 Sent enci ng G ui del i nes i s bi ndi ng “unl es s i truns af o u l o f the C ons t i tut i on ora fe der al s t atut e, ori s pl ai nl yerr oneou s or in c o n sis ten t w ith th e se c ti o n o f th e g u id e lin e s it p u rp o rts to i n t e rp r et

. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . M

c Q u ilkin , 97 F. 3d 723, 731 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ). 14 qual i fi es fort he tw o- l evel r educt i on unders u b sect i on ( a) ; t he defe ndant ’ s offe ns e l evel i s 16 or gr eat er pr i or t o t he oper at i on of subs e c t i o n ( a ) ; a n d t h e d e f e n d a n ta s s i s t e d a u t h o r i t i e s by ( 1) “t im el ypr ovi di ng compl et e i nfor m at i on t o t he governm ent r egar di ng hi s rol e i n t he off ens e, ” or( 2) “t i m el ynot i fy i ng a u t h o r i t i e s o f h i s i n t e n t i o n t o e n t e r a p l e a o f g u i l t y , t her eby perm i t t i ng t he governm ent t o avoi d pr epar i ng fort r i al and p e rm ittin g th e c o u rt to a llo c a te its re s o u rc e s e f f e c tiv e ly.” U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES § 3 E 1

. 1 (b) (1 9 9 8 ).
A pp li cat i on not e 5 t o s ect i on 3E 1. 1 pr ovi des t hat“the s ent enci ng j udge i s i n a uni que pos i t i on t o eval uat e a defe ndant ’ s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . ” U N I T ED S TAT ES S ENT ENCING G UI DEL INES § 3E 1. 1 cmt

. n. 5 ( 1998)

. A ccor di ng to A p p lic a tio n n o te 1, th e d istri ct co u rtis directed to co n side r, in tera lia , w hethert he def endant“trut hful l yadmi t t [ed] t he c o n d u c t c o m p risin g th e o f f e n se (s) o f

c o n v ictio n , an d tru th f

u lly admi t t [ed] ornotfal s el yden[i ed] any addi t i onal r el evant conductforw hi ch the def endanti s acc ount abl e[. ] ” U NI TED S TATE S S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES § 3 E 1 .1 c m t. n . 1 (a) (19 9 8 ). 8 W e h a v e re p e a ted lyh e ld th a t d istric t co u rts d o n o t ab u se th e ir di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he t w o- l evel adj us t m ent foracc ept ance of re sp o n sib ilityin situ a tio n s w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t d e n ied h isT he G ov ernm ent ci t es U n ited S ta tes v . L a rk in , 171 F. 3d 9 556, 558 ( 7t h C i r . 1999) , fort he pr opos i t i on t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our tcoul d h ave de ni ed the adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y beca us e B oot h “r ej ect ed s ever al offe r s t o r educe t he cha r ges agai ns thi m i n excha nge fori nfor m at i on per t ai ni ng t o t he cr i m e. ” I n L a rk in , h o w ever , t he courtdi d notr ej ectt he t hr ee- l evel r educt i on beca us e of t he def endant ’ s fai l ur e t o ent er i nt o a pl ea agr eement

. R ather t he cour t of appea l s , as i n o ur deci s i ons ci t ed above, det erm i ned thatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on t o deny t he r educt i on beca us e t he def endant re f u s e d to a d m it h is c o m p lic ity in a ll r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. See i d. at558 ( s t at i ng t hat “the d is t r i ctcour tbas ed i t s deni al of the acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yr educt i on on t he fa ct thatL arki n, act i ng on t he advi ce of hi s l aw y er , r efus ed t o t el l t he pr obat i on o f f ice o r th e c o u rt w h e re h e g o t th e m a riju a n a ” ); s ee al s o i d. at 5 5 9 (ho lding that “it w as clearlyp erm issi b le fo r th e d istri ct co u rt t o condi t i on t he r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yon L ark in' s w il li n g n ess to p rov ide th is i n fo rm ati o n ”). 15 c o m p lic ity f

o r t h e c ri m e a n d a ll o th e r r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. See , e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . B e n n e tt , 1 6 1 F

. 3 d 1 7 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. V

eks l er , 6 2 F .3 d 5 4 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); Uni t ed St at es v. Fr i ers on , 9 4 5 F .2 d 6 5 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Si ngh , 9 2 3 F

. 2 d 1 0 3 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). 9
I n t hi s cas e, how ever , b ase d upon t he s t age of t he p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n Bo o t h ’ s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n , we m us tacc eptt hatB oot h w oul d have trut hful l yadmi t t ed the conductcompri s i ng count s one and tw o and anyaddi t i onal re lev a n t co n d u c t. In th a t ev e n t, B o o th w o u ld h a v e lik e ly16 r e c e i v e d a t h r e e - l e v e l r e d u c t i o n f o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. B oot h was p r e

j u d i c e d b e c a u s e , b yp r o c e e d i n g t o t r i a l a nd becomi ng i nel i gi bl e fort he thr ee- l evel adj us t m entfor acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , he w as expos ed t o an addi t i onal 19 t o 30 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent

. A s a r es ul t , w e ca nnotfi nd t hatt he a lleg a tio n s in B o o th ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n c o n c lu siv e lyb a rs h im fro m d em o n str ati n g p rejud ice u n d er Str i ckland

.

B . P erf orm ance T he G overnm entar gues t hatB o ot h’ s t r i al couns el di d not per for m unr eas o n abl ybeca us e he e nt er ed i nt o ext ens i ve pl ea n e g o t i a t i o n s wi t h t h e Go v e r n me n twh i c h r e s u l t e d i n t wo p rop o sed p lea ag ree m en ts. T h e flaw in th e G o v ern m en t’ s a rg u m e n t is th a t ita ss u m e s th a t B o o th h a d o n lytw o p o ss ib le opt i o n s : e i t h e ra g r e e t o t h e Gov e r n me n t ’ s p r o p o s e d pl ea agr eementatcountt w o, orpr ocee d t o t r i al

. B oo t h’ s habea s pet i t i on, how ever , i s pr emi s ed on the ar g u m en t tha thi s t r i al couns el , r eal i zi ng t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence and know i ng t hatB oot h cont i nual l y obj ect ed t o cooper at i ng w i t h t he g o v ern m ent , s houl d have i nfor m ed hi m of a thi r d opt i on: e n ter in g a n o p e n p lea a n d re c e iv in g a th re e -le v e l r e d u c tio n in h is o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. B oo t h’s pro se habea s pet i t i on cont ai ns a det ai l ed fa ctual s t at ement cl ear l ys et t i ng fo rth al l egat i ons t hathi s t r i al couns el neveri nfor m ed h im tha the coul d ent eran open pl ea. T he G overnm en t a s s er t s t hatt he tr i al couns el ’ s decl ar at i on, s t at i ng th a t h e d isc u ss e d w ith B o o th “ a ll d e f e n se s th a t w e re a v a ilab le to [B oot h] ats ent enci ng and .

. . anyfac t or s t hatcoul d m i t i gat e the se n ten c e h e c o u ld re c e iv e ,” c o n c lu siv e ly e sta b lish e s th a t B o o th17 w a s in f o rm e d h e c o u ld e n ter a g u iltyp lea w ith o u t en ter in g in to a plea agreem ent. T he d ecl arat i on , h o w e ver, focu ses al m ost excl us ively o n t he hi s t or yof the pl ea ne got i at i ons , r athert han t he s peci fi c al l egat i ons i n B oot h’ s pet i t i on. I n t hi s r es pect , t he decl ar at i on i s m or e pr obat i ve of w hat i t does notaddr es s r ather t han w hat i tdo es. T h e d e ter m in a tio n o f

w h e th e r tria l co u n se l’s f a ilu re to i nfor m Boo t h t h a th e c o u l d e n t e ra n o p e n p l e a was cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entm us tbe vi ew ed thr ough t he pr i s m of t h e s p e c i f

i c f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , t w o f a c t s a r e k e y: ( 1) t he D i str ict C our ti t s el f r ecogni zed ( and the G overnm ent does notdi s put e) t hatt he evi dence agai ns tB oot h w as “overw h e l mi n g ” ; and ( 2) t he dec l ar at i on of B oot h’ s t r i al couns el acknow l edges t hatB oot h di d notw antt o ent eri nt o a pl ea agr eementbeca u se h e di d notw antt o pr ovi de i ncr i m i nat i ng i nfor m at i on t o t he governm entr egar di ng a pos s i bl e codefe ndant ’ s r ol e i n t he offe ns e. U nder t hes e fa ct s , i ti s i r r el evant t hatB oot h m ayhave r ece i ved a be t t ers ent ence had he a cce pt ed th e p ro p o se d p lea a g re e m e n t b e c a u se B o o th w a s n e v e r g o in g to provide t he g ov ernm ent w i t h i ncri m i nati ng i nfo rm at i on against a p o ss ib le c o -d e f

e n d a n t. B o o th ’s r e lu c tan c e to c o o p e ra te w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t w a s the d e a l-b re a k e r. F ro m th is relu c tan c e to co o p era te, the G o v ern m en t w an ts us to d eterm ine th at B o o th’s o n lyo th e r o p tio n w a s to g o to trial.
I ti s clea r , how ever , t hatanotherr eas onabl e opt i on w as a v a ilab le. W e h a v e sta ted th a t “a d e f e n d a n t h a s th e rig h t to m ake a r eas onabl yi nfor m ed deci s i on w hethert o acc epta pl ea o ffer ” bec aus e “[ k] now l edge of t he compar at i ve s ent ence e x p o su re b e tw e e n sta n d in g trial a n d a c c e p tin g a p lea o f f e r w ill18 oft en be c ruci al t o t he deci s i on w hethert o pl ead gui l t y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D ay , 969 F. 2d 39, 44 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng Hill , 477 U

. S. at56- 57)

. I f a de fenda ntr ai s es s uffi ci ental le gat i ons t hat his cou nsel ’s adv i ce in helpi ng t o m ake thatdecis i on w as “so i ns uffi ci entt hati tunderm i ned [the def endant ’ s ] abi l i t yt o m ake a n in te llig e n t d e c is io n a b o u t w h e th e r t o a c c e p t th e [ p le a ] o f f e r,” th e d e f e n d a n t is en tit led to a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g o n th e m e rits o f h is h a b e a s p e titio n . I

d. a t 4 3 -4 4 ; s ee als o U ni t ed Stat es v. D ay , 285 F. 3d 1167, 1172 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) ( hol ding thatt he d e fend ant w as prej ud i ced b ecause h i s coun sel gav e h im err oneous advi ce that l ed hi m t o pr ocee d t o t r i al , t hus pr ecl udi ng hi m fr om r ec eivin g a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of resp o n sibil ity ).
I n thi s cas e, B oot h has r ai s ed s uffi ci ental l egat i ons t hat hi s t r i a l c o u n s e l d e p r i v e d h i m o f t h e o p p o r tu n i t y t o ma 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 roc ee d to tr ial b ec au se h is tri al co u n sel fa il ed to inf o rm hi m t hat he coul d ent er an open pl ea. A s a r es ult , B o o th w as pot ent ial l ys ubj ectt o an i ncr eas e of 19 t o 30 m ont hs i m pri sonm ent based up on his t ri al cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o ad vis e hi m aboutal l pos s i bl e pl ea opt i ons . T hes e al l egat i ons , w hi ch have notbeen r ebut t ed byt he dec l ar at i on o f B o o t h’ s t r i al co u n sel, m aysu p p o rt B o o th’s claim

. T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n deny i ng B oot h’ s habeas pet i t i on w i t houthol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng. I V.
F o r th e re a so n s se t f

o rth a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t B o o th i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng on t he mer i t s of hi s habea s19 cl ai m . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e and r emand t he dec i s i on of th e D istric t C o u rt f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n si s ten t w ith th is opi ni on.