## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 0 9- 37 88

__ __ __ __ __ _

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

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Reg in al d S co tt Hub ba rd

, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 10
Fi le d: Apri l 2 0, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury fou nd Reg in al d S co tt Hub ba rd gu il ty on o ne co un t o f be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a ) ( 2 )

. Th e
di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Hub ba rd to 96 m on th s' im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

, Hub ba rd 1

arg ue s th at (1 ) he was de pr iv ed of th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l be cau se hi s tri al

co un se l to ld h i m t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld no t al lo w hi m to te st ify in hi s own
de fen se an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng a se nt en ce th at

was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . For th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Ro se nb au m , Uni te d St at e s D i s tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.I. Bac kg ro un d

On Ju ne 18

, 20 08

, th e Mi nn eap ol is Po li ce Dep art m en t ex ecu te d a se arch

warra nt at Hub ba rd 's ap art m en t an d fou nd Hub ba rd wit h hi s adu lt so n. In se arch in g

th e ap art m en t, po li ce fo un d a se m i-a ut om at ic pi st ol

, a di gi ta l s c a l e, an d m ari juan a.
The po li ce arres te d hi m fo r su sp ect ed weap on s an d n arco ti cs vi ol at io ns

. The po li ce

al so arre st ed hi s so n fo r a su sp ect ed na rco ti cs vi ol at io n. Su bs eq ue n t t o h i s arre st

, Hub ba rd ad m it te d, on fo ur se pa rat e oc cas io n s , t o own in g th e gu n. One of th es e
ad m is si on s oc cu rred aft er po li ce in fo rm ed hi m th at th ey ha d rel eas ed hi s so n fro m jail

be cau se he ha d " no co nn ect io n" to th e su sp ect ed cri m es

.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed Hub ba rd on on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of

a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). Hub ba rd pl ead ed no t gu il ty an d

pr oc eed ed to a jury tri al

. Im m ed ia te ly be fo re th e tri al st art ed

, ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of

th e jury, the di st ric t co ur t i nf or m ed Hub ba rd of h is rig ht to tes ti fy :

THE COURT:

. . . If y ou wis h to te st ify, if y ou ha ve a st or y or y ou ha ve

so m et hi ng y ou wan t th e jury to he ar fro m y ou , no bo dy can st op yo u

. You r la wy er can no t st op y ou an d th e pr os ecu to r can 't an d I c an 't. Tha t

m ean s y ou do n't ha ve to te st ify if y ou do n't wan t to

, bu t y ou ab so lu te ly

can if you l ik e, it is pu rel y y ou r ch oi ce. Do y ou un de rs ta nd th at ?

THE DE FENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: The deci si on whet he r or no t for a cri m in al de fen da nt to

te st ify in a tri al is an im

po rta nt on e. I kn ow y ou wil l di sc us s it wit h y ou r la wy er. I'm

no t as ki ng y ou no w what y ou r ch oi ce is, I do n't care , th at 's

y ou r pr iv il eg e. Bu t I wan te d to m ak e su re th at fo rm al ly y ou un de rs to od

y ou r ri gh ts . Okay?

THE DE FENDANT: Okay.

-2

-Fo ll owi ng th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t' s cas e, Hub ba rd 's tri al co un se l res te d th e

defe nse's cas e wit ho ut cal li ng Hub ba rd to te st ify. The reco rd refl ect s th at Hub ba rd di d

no t v oi ce an y

ob jecti on s o r ot he rwis e req ue st to tes ti fy

.

Afte r th e jury ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t, Hub ba rd fil ed a pr o se m ot io n to rel ie ve

hi s ap p o i nt ed tri al co un se l an d a pr o se m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

, in whi ch he al le ge d,

am on g ot he r th in gs , t ha t he was de ni ed effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. The di st ric t

co ur t ap po in te d ne w co un se l, who fil ed a m o t i o n f o r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on
Hub ba rd 's c la im s.

At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Hub ba rd 's m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

, Hub ba rd 's new

ap po in te d co un se l st at ed th at Hub ba rd be li ev ed t ha t, du rin g tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t

he ld a si de ba r wit h Hub ba rd 's tri al co un se l a n d th e go ve rn m en t at to rn ey ; aft er th is

si de ba r, Hub ba rd 's tri al co un se l to ld Hub ba rd th at th e co ur t wo ul d no t all ow hi m to

te st ify. Hub ba rd th en te st ifi ed at th e he ari ng

. He a c k n o wled ge d th at th e co ur t ha d

2

in fo rm ed hi m of hi s rig ht to te st ify an d th at he un de rs to od th at no on e co ul d pr ev en t

hi m fro m te st ifyin g. He al so st at ed th at

, aft er th e go ve rn m en t res te d it s cas e, he

in fo rm ed hi s tri al co un se l th at he wan te d to te st ify, bu t hi s tri al co un se l in fo rm ed hi m

th at th e co ur t wou ld no t al lo w hi m to ta ke th e st an d. I n a d di ti on , he st at ed th at th e

co ur t "t ol d th e jury [it ] was sh oc ke d" whe n hi s tri al co un se l res te d th e de fen se 's cas e. 3

W he n as ke d, Hub ba rd co ul d no t ex pl ai n why he di d no t pr ot es t whe n hi s tri al

at to rn ey res te d wit ho ut cal li ng hi m to te st ify. Tam m y Pet ti s, Hub ba rd 's fia nc ée, al so

te st ifi ed at th e he ari ng

. Sh e st at ed th at sh e was pr ep ared to te st ify i n Hub ba rd 's

A rev ie w of th e tri al tra ns cri pt do es no t rev eal an y reco rd of th is al le ge d be nc h 2

co nf eren ce. At th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at it ha s "n ev er ha d

a be nc h co nf

ere n c e w i t h o u t a reco rd ." In de ed

, th e tri al tra ns cri pt do es refl ect two be nc h co nf

eren ces , b ot h of whi ch were un re l a te d to whe th er Hub ba rd co ul d te st ify

at tri al

.

No s uc h s ta te m en t b y th e d is tri ct co ur t ap pe ars in th e tr ia l t ran sc rip t. 3

-3

-de fen se , bu t Hub ba rd 's tri al co un se l in fo rm ed he r th at th e di st ri c t c o u r t wou ld no t

al lo w her to tes ti fy

eit he r.

At a su bs eq ue nt se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t c o ur t ad dr es se d Hub ba rd 's

m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, ex pr es sl y fin di ng Hub ba rd an d hi s fi an cée n ot cred ib le . The

co ur t t he n d en ie d Hu bb ard 's m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t fir st cal cu la te d th e ad vi so ry S e n te nc in g
Gui de li ne s ran ge , ex pl ic it ly no ti ng th at th e Gui de li ne s are "ef fect ively ad vi so ry ." The

co ur t ad op te d th e fin di ng s in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t, bu t it de cl in ed th e

go ve rn m en t ' s r e q ue st to im po se a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) fo r po ss es si ng th e g u n in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se

. Acco rd in gl y , th e co ur t fo un d th at Hub ba rd ha d a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 24 an d a
cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y of I V, y ie ld in g a Gui de li ne s ra ng e o f 77 to 96 m on th s.

The di st ric t co ur t th en al lo wed Hub ba rd to sp eak

. Dur in g hi s al lo cu ti on , Hub ba rd pr im ari ly at te m

pt ed to de m on st rat e th at he ha d ne ve r po ss es se d th e fir earm

. Afte r he ari ng th e go ve rn m en t's se nt en ci ng arg um en t, th e co ur t se nt en ced Hub ba rd to

96 m on th s' im

pr is on m en t— th e to p of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge —t ak in g in to acco un t hi s

pr io r cri m in al it y an d cu rren t m en da ci ty. In a d di ti on , th e co ur t's jud gm en t

reco m m en de d t ha t Hu bb ard pa rti ci pa te in a dr ug tre at m en t p ro gr am

.

II. Dis cu ss io n
Hub ba rd rai se s two arg um en ts on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he as se rts th at he was de pr iv ed

of th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l be cau se hi s tri al co un se l to ld hi m th at th e
di st ric t co ur t wou ld no t al lo w hi m to te st ify in hi s own de fen se

. Seco nd

, he co nt en ds

th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng a s en te nc e th at was

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e ad dr es s ea ch arg um en t i n t ur n.

-4

-A. In ef fe ct iv e Ass is ta nc e o

f Co un se l

Hub ba rd fir st arg ue s th at he was de pr iv ed of th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

be cau se hi s tri al co un se l to ld hi m th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld no t al lo w hi m to te st ify

in hi s own de fen se

. Alt ho ug h he co nc ed es th at th e di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed hi m of hi s rig ht to do so , he cl ai m s th at hi s co un se l's st at em en t la te r de pr iv ed hi m of th at rig ht

. Thi s in effe ct iv en es s pr ejud ic ed hi m , he as se rts

, be cau se hi s te st im on y was "h is on ly

ch an ce to se c ur e a no t gu il ty v erd ic t" be cau se he ne ed ed to ex pl ai n to th e jury why

he ha d c on fes se d t o o wni ng th e fi rear m

.

Cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l are ge ne ral ly be st li ti ga te d i n

co ll at eral pr oc eed in gs , su ch as an act io n un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d

St at es v. Lewi s , 48 3 F.3 d 87 1, 87 3 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 7 )

. " W e wil l co ns id er

in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s on di rect ap p e a l o n l y whe re th e reco rd ha s be en fu ll y
de ve lo pe d, whe re no t to act wou ld am ou nt to a pl ai n m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce, or whe re

co un se l's erro r is read il y ap pa ren t." Uni te d St at es v. Rami re z- Her na nd ez , 44 9 F.3 d

82 4, 82 7 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ). W he n t he de fen da nt rai se s an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce clai m

in a m ot io n for new tri al

, we ha ve , on oc cas io n, fou nd th at th e tri al co ur t de ve lo pe d

a reco rd "s uf

fic ie nt to ex am in e co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce." Uni te d St at es v. Vil la lp an do

, 25 9 F.3 d 93 4, 93 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (n ot in g th at

, al th ou gh th e di st ric t co u r t di d no t

co nd uc t a he ari ng , th e co ur t was ab le to ob se rv e tri al co un se l's "p oo r" rep res en ta ti on

a t t r i a l); se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. W

il li ams , 56 2 F.3 d 93 8, 94 0– 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(fi nd in g a su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d reco rd whe n po te nt ia l tri al wit ne ss es te st ifi ed at th e

po st -tr ia l he ari ng ); Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 89 7 F.2 d 14 30

, 14 34 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 )
(fi nd in g a su ffi ci en tl y de ve l o p e d r eco rd whe n tri al co un se l an d an in ve st ig at or

te st ifi ed at a po st -tr ia l he ari ng th at th ey co nt act ed a po te nt ia l wit ne ss w hose te sti m on y

wou ld no t h av e aff

ect ed th e o ut co m e o f th e cas e).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t su ffi ci en t l y de ve lo pe d th e reco rd on Hub ba rd 's

in effe ct iv e-as si st a n c e

- of

-co un se l cl ai m to en ab le ou r rev ie w. Hub ba rd rai se d hi s
cl ai m in a m ot io n for new tri al

, an d th e di st ric t cou rt hel d an evi de nt ia ry he ari ng on

-5

-th e m at te r. Hub ba rd ad m it te d th at th e di st ric t cou rt ha d in fo rm ed hi m of hi s rig ht to

te st i f y a t t r i a l an d th at he un de rs to od th at no on e, in cl ud in g hi s at to rn ey , co ul d

pr ev en t hi m fro m do in g so

. Non et he l e s s , Hub ba rd an d hi s fia nc ée, Pet ti s, bo th

te st ifi ed th at Hu b ba rd 's tri al co un se l to ld th em th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld no t le t

th em tes ti fy at tri al . Th e di st ric t co ur t, h owe ve r, co nc lu de d t ha t Hu bb ard an d P et ti s

were no t cred ib le

, fin di ng th at Hub ba rd 's te st im on y was un su pp or t e d or ev en

co nt rad ic te d by the reco rd . Alt ho ug h t es ti m on y fro m Hub ba rd 's tri al co un se l m ig ht

ha ve be en he lp fu l to co nc lu si ve ly de te rm in e whe th er sh e m ad e th es e st at em en ts

, he r

te st im on y is no t ne ces sa ry gi ve n th e un rel ia bi li ty of Hub ba rd 's an d Pet ti s's te st im on y

. Acco rd in gl y , th is reco rd is s uf fic ie nt to ev al ua te Hub ba rd 's in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce
cl ai m

.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a m ot io n f o r n e w t r ia l ba se d on

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Vil la lp an do

, 25 9 F.3 d at 93 8.

"In or de r to es ta bl is h a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, th e de fen da nt m us t

sh ow th at co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le

co m pe te nc e, an d th at th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed th e de fen da nt ." Id

. (ci ti ng

St ri ckl an d v . W

as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7 (1 98 4) ).

H u b ba rd was no t de ni ed th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. He ha s fai le d t o

es ta bl is h th e fir st pr on g fo r an in effe ct iv e-as si s t an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m un de r

St ri ckl an d

. Hub ba rd co nc ed ed at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng th at th e co ur t fu ll y in fo rm ed

hi m of hi s rig ht to te st ify. Abs en t a sh owi ng th at hi s tri al co un se l "u nd ul y in flu en ced

or co erce d" hi m no t to te st ify, Hub ba rd waiv ed hi s rig ht to te st ify by rem ai ni ng si le nt

aft er hi s tri al co un se l res te d wit ho ut cal li ng hi m as a wit ne ss

. Berk ov it z v. Min ne so ta

, 50 5 F.3 d 82 7, 82 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ) (fi nd in g th at th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly

waiv ed he r rig ht to te st ify by rem ai ni ng si l e nt aft er he r tri al co un se l res te d, ev en

th ou gh he r tri al co un se l st ro ng ly ad vi se d he r no t to te st ify). Hub ba rd 's on ly ev id en ce

of su ch in flu en ce or co erci on was hi s an d Pet ti s's te st im on y th at hi s tri al co un se l to ld

th em th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld no t le t th em te st ify. The di s t ric t co ur t, ho wev er,

-6

-fo un d t ha t th ei r te st im on y was no t cred ib le , a fin di ng th at is "v irt ua ll y un as sa il ab le

on ap pe al ." Uni te d St at es v. Bol de n , 59 6 F.3 d 97 6, 98 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on an d

ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The reco rd su pp or t s th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng

. Hub ba rd ci te s no

ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s cl ai m ab ou t a be nc h co nf eren ce di sc us si n g hi s ab il it y to

te st ify or hi s cl ai m th at th e co ur t ex pr es se d it s sh oc k to th e ju r y w he n th e de fen se

res te d wit ho ut cal li ng Hub ba rd to te st ify. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e

it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g H u b b ard 's m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d on in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce o f co un se l.

B. Su bs ta nt iv e Rea so na bl en es s o f t he Se nt en ce Imp os ed

Hub ba rd ne xt co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng

a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce. He m ai nt ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld no t

ha ve co ns id ered hi s cri m in al hi st or y whe n de te rm in in g hi s se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C.
§ 35 53 (a) be cau se th e Gui de li ne s ha d al read y ta ke n hi s cri m in al hi st or y in to acco un t

whe n c al cu la ti ng th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e.

"When we rev ie w th e im

po si ti on of se nt en ces , whe th e r i n s i d e or ou ts id e th e
Gui de li ne s ran ge , we ap pl y a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ." Uni te d St at es

v. Feems te r , 5 7 2 F

. 3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. "We 'm

us t fir s t e n s u re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t

pr oc ed ur al erro r,'" in cl ud i n g "'fa il in g to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e
Gui d e l i n e s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to

ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce— in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n

fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Gal l v. Uni t e d S ta te s , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51
(2 00 7) ).

Bec au se Hub ba rd ha s no t al le ge d an y fo rm of pr oc ed ur al erro r, "we bypas s th e

fir st pa rt of ou r rev ie w an d m ov e di rec t ly to rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

of hi s sen te nc e." Uni te d St at es v. O'Co nn or , 56 7 F .3d 39 5, 3 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e

-7

-rev ie w th e su b s t a n ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d us in g a de fere nt ia l

ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1. In mak i n g th is

de te rm in at io n, t hi s co ur t m us t "t ak e in to acco un t th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ."

Id

. If th e se nt en ce im

po se d is wit hi n th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge , th is co ur t "m ay , bu t is no t req ui red to

, ap pl y a pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss ." Gal l

, 55 2 U.S. at 51

. The di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld m ak e " an in di vi du al iz ed as se ss m en t ba se d on th e fact s

pr es en te d, sp eci fic al ly ad dr es si ng th e de fen d an t's pr of fere d in fo rm at io n in it s

co ns id erat io n of th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s." Uni te d St at es v. Jo rd an , 57 3 F.3 d 58 6, 59 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns , ci ta ti on s, an d al te rat io ns

om it te d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng a se nt en ce at th e to p

of th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s rang e. Hub ba rd ci te s no au th or it y fo r hi s ass ert io n th at

a co ur t m ay no t co ns id er a de fen da nt 's cri m in al hi st or y se pa rat el y fro m th e cal cu la ti on

of th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge

. In co nt ras t, th e la ng ua ge of § 35 53 (a) req ui res a

se nt en ci ng co ur t to co ns id er, am on g ot he r th in gs , "t he hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs of

th e de fen da nt " an d th e ne ed "t o pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er cri m es of th e
de fen da nt " al on g wit h th e ap pl i c a b l e se nt en ce reco m m en de d by t he Gui de li ne s. 18

U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1)

, (a)( 2) (C) an d (a)( 4) ( A )

. Here, th e co ur t co ns id ered Hub ba rd 's

cri m in al hi st or y as on e of se ve ral fact or s jus ti f yi n g a se nt en ce at th e to p of th e

ap pl i c a b l e G u id el in es ran ge

. The reco rd de m on st rat es th at th e co ur t m ad e an

in di vi du al iz ed as se ss m en t of Hub ba rd

, co ns id eri ng le tt ers , m em or a n d a , a nd or al

arg um en ts he su bm it te d to th e co ur t. Hub b a r d ha s no t de m on st rat ed th at hi s
wit hi n- Gui de li ne s se nt en ce sh ou ld no t be en ti tl ed to a pr es um pti on of re as ona

blenes s,

an d aft er a care fu l rev ie w of th e se nt en ci ng reco rd

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n i n s en te nc in g Hu bb ard to 96 m on th s' i m pr is on m en t.

III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-8

-