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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 32 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ans u Ab rah am

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 - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 12 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 15 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

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

Ans u Abr ah am pl ed gu il ty to po ss e s s io n wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne in
vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 1
twel ve m on th s an d on e da y im pr is on m en t, as well as th ree y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.At th e ti m e of hi s g ui lt y pl ea an d se nt en ci ng , Abr ah am was a Leg al Perm an en t

R es id en t. The Bu reau of Im m ig rat io n an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t in it ia te d rem ov a l

pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m du e to hi s co nv ic ti on

. Abr ah am fil ed a m ot io n to va cat e hi s

se nt en ce un de r 28 U

. S

. C

. § 22 55
, arg ui ng hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to ad vi se hi m of th e im m ig rat i o n c o n s eq ue nc es of hi s gu il ty pl ea. The di st ric t co ur t de ni e d t h is m ot io n, as well as Abr ah am ’s su bs eq ue nt m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. Abr ah am ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de n i a l o f h i s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. W e h a ve juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

. W e affi rm , “ al be it fo r di ffe r e n t

reas on s th an th os e art ic ul at ed by th e [d ]ist ric t [c]ou r t

. ” See And ers on v. Uni te d
St at es , 39 3 F .3d 74 9, 7 53 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

I.

On Sep te m

be r 15
, 20 09
, Abr ah am pl ed gu il ty to po ss es si o n w it h in te nt to di st rib ut e co c a i n e

. I n pr ep arat io n fo r se nt en ci ng , a pr ob at io n of fic er pr ep ared a Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (“ PSR” ) an d a Sen te nc in g Rec om m en da ti on

. The
PSR i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g l an gu ag e:

It is no te d th at Mr. Abr ah am is a Leg al Perm an en t Res id en t of th e Uni te d St at es , an d is au th or iz ed to li ve an d wor k he re. The in st an t of fen se ren de rs hi m de po rta bl e. As a res ul t of hi s im m ig rat io n s t at us , th e Bu reau of I mm i gr at io n an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t wil l lo dg e a Deta in er fo r Dep or ta ti on ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt

.

Abr ah am ’s Sen te nc in g Rec om m en da ti on in cl ud ed su bs ta nt ia ll y si mi la r la ng ua ge

. 2

The Sen te nc in g R eco m

m en da ti on st at ed : 2

Mr. Abr ah am was bo rn in Lib eri a. H e i s a U.S. Leg al Perm an en t Res id en t. The in st an t of

fen se ren de rs hi m de po rta bl e. As a res ul t of hi s im m ig rat io n st at us , th e Bu reau of Im m ig rat io n an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t wil l lo dg e a d e t ai ne r fo r de po rta ti on

. Thu s, it is

-2

-Thro ug h hi s at to rn ey , Abr ah am acce pt ed th e PSR wit ho ut ob jecti on on Nov em

be r 5,
20 09

.

The di st ric t co ur t he ld a se nt en ci ng he ari ng on Nov em be r 30
, 20 09

. At th at he ari ng , wit h Abr ah am pr es en t an d in op en co ur t, Abr ah am ’s at to rn ey co nf irmed he

rece iv ed th e PSR an d Sen te nc in g Rep or t a n d d is cu ss ed th em wit h Abr ah am

. The
di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e PSR, ad op te d it s f i n di ng s, an d se nt en ced Abr ah am to twel ve m on th s an d on e da y im pr is on m en t, as well as th ree y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

On Mar ch 31
, 20 10
, fo ur m on th s aft er th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Abr ah am , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld in Pad il la v. Ken tu ck y , 13 0 S. Ct

. 14 73
, 14 86 (2 01 0) th at whe n ad vi si ng a cri m in al de fen da nt ab ou t th e co ns eq ue nc es of pl ead in g gu il ty,

“ c o u ns el m

us t in fo rm he r cl ie nt whe th er hi s pl ea carr ie s a ris k of de po rta ti on ,” an d
th at fai lu re t o d o s o is su bjec t to an al y si s un de r St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S.
66 8 (1 98 4)

. In la te 20 10
, th e Bu reau of Im m ig rat io n an d C u s t om s Enfo rcem en t de ta in ed Abr ah am to in it ia te rem ov a l p ro ceed in gs du e to hi s co nv ic ti on

. Abr ah am

su bs eq ue nt ly file d a m ot io n to va cat e h is gu il ty ple a o n F eb ru ary 21 , 20 11 , arg ui ng th a t i n l i g h t of Pad il la
, hi s at to rn ey was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to ad vi se hi m of th e im m ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of h is gu il ty ple a.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Abr ah am ’s m ot io n. Uni te d St at es v. Abr ah am , 20 11
W L 38 82 29 0, at *3 (D. Neb

. Sep t. 1, 20 11 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). The co ur t fir st ex pr es se d
do ub t th at Pad il la ap pl ie d ret ro act iv el y on co ll at e r a l rev ie w bu t th en wen t on to

“ as su m e th at Pad il la is ret ro act iv e an d Abr ah am ’s m ot io n was ti m el y fil ed

. . . .” Id

. at *2

. The co ur t he ld th at ev en if Pad il la were ret ro act iv e, Abr ah am was no t en ti tl ed

to rel ie f un de r St ric kl a n d b e c a u s e (1 ) at th e ti m e Abr ah am pl ed gu il ty, “ it was no t cl ear th at it wa s a p r e v a il in g pr of es si on al no rm in th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it to in fo rm a

reco m m en de d th at he co m

pl y wit h th e r e g u la ti on s of th e Bu reau of Im m ig rat io n a nd Cu st om s En fo rcem en t d ue to hi s i m m ig rat io n s ta tu s.

-3

-de fen da nt of im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc e s w h e n pl ead in g gu il ty” an d (2 ) Abr ah am

co ul d no t sh ow pr ejud ic e be cau se a rel at ed st at e ch arg e was di sm is se d in li gh t of th e fed eral pr os ecu ti on bu t “ co ul d li ke ly be rei ns ta te d” an d res ul t in de po rta ti on if th e fed eral co nv ic ti on were v acat ed . Id. at *3 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

II.

W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n to va cat e un de r 28
U.S.C. § 22 55

. Hod ge v

. U n i t e d St at es , 60 2 F.3 d 93 5, 93 7 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S . Ct. 3 34 (20 10 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t he ld in Pad il la th at fa i l u r e t o ad vi se a de fen da nt of th e im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es of pl ead in g gu il ty is su bjec t to St ric kl an d’s two -p ro ng ed

an al y si s. 13 0 S. Ct

. a t 14 82

. Und er th e fir st St ric kl an d pr on g, a co ur t m us t

“ de te rm in e whe th er co un se l’s rep res en ta ti on fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st a n d a rd of

reas on ab le ne ss ” as m eas ur ed by “ pr ev ai li ng pr of es si on al no rm s.” Id

. (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ W he n th e la w i s no t su cci nc t an d st rai gh tfo rward

. . . a cri m i n a l d e f

en se at to rn ey ne ed do no m or e th an ad vi se a no nc it iz en cl ie nt th at

pe nd in g cri m in al ch arg es m ay carr y a ris k of ad ve rs e im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es

. Bu t whe n th e de po rta ti on co ns eq ue nc e is tru ly cl ear

. . . th e du ty to gi ve co rrec t ad vi ce is

eq ua ll y cl ear.” Id

. at 14 83 (in te rn al fo ot no te om it te d)

. Und er th e se co nd St ric kl an d

pr on g, t he co ur t m

us t d et erm in e whe th er “ th ere is a reas on ab le pro ba bi li ty tha t, b ut fo r co un se l’s un pr of

es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t of t h e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” Id . at 1 48 2.

The ci rcu it s are sp li t ov er whe th er Pad il la is a ne w r u le of co ns ti tu ti on al la w

or a ne w a pp li cat io n of an ol d ru le

. Thi s di st in ct io n is im p o r t a n t b e c a u s e ol d ru le s

a pp ly ret ro act iv el y on co ll at eral rev ie w, whi le ne w ru le s, su bjec t to na rro w

ex cep ti on s, do no t. See Teag u e v

. La n e, 48 9 U.S. 28 8, 31 0 (1 98 9)

. Thre e ci rcu it s ha ve he ld Pad il la an no un ced a ne w ru le th at do es no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y

. See Uni te d

-4

-St at es v. Am er, 68 1 F.3 d 21 1, 21 4 (5 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ch an g Hon g, 67 1

F.3 d 11 47
, 11 48 (1 0t h Cir. 20 11 ); Cha id ez v. Uni te d Stat es , 65 5 F.3 d 68 4, 68 6 (7 th
Ci r. 20 11 ), cert

. gr an te d, 80 U.S.L.W

. 34 29 (U.S. Apr il 30
, 20 12 ) (No

. 11 -8 20 ). Two
ci rcu it s ha ve as su m ed
, wit ho ut de ci di ng , th at Pad il la an no un ced a ne w ru le an d th en he ld th at if it is a ne w ru le
, Pad il la do es no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Mat hu r, 68 5 F.3 d 39 6, 39 8- 99 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Fi gu ereo -San ch ez v. Uni te d St at es , 67 8 F.3 d 12 03
, 12 08 -0 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ). Onl y on e ci rcu it ha s he ld th at Pad il la is “ a

ne w app li cat io n o f an ‘ ol d ru le ’” and co ns eq ue nt ly tha t i t d oe s ap pl y ret ro act iv el y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Oroci o, 64 5 F.3d 63 0, 64 1 (3 d Ci r. 20 11 ). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s gr an te d cert io rari in Ch ai de z to res ol ve th e qu es ti on of whe th er Pad il la is an ol d

or ne w rul e.

W e ne ed no t de ci de whe th er Pad il la ap pl ie s ret ro act iv el y on co ll at eral rev ie w be cau se we ho ld th at ev en if Pad il la do es ap pl y ret ro act iv el y , Abr ah am can no t sa ti sf y St ric kl an d’s pr ejud ic e pr on g. Reg ard l e s s o f w he th er Pad il la is ret ro act iv e, a de fe n d a n t can no t sa ti sf

y St ric kl an d’s pr ejud ic e pr on g whe n “ th e PSR in di cat ed a li ke li ho od th at [ t h e de fen da nt ] wou ld be de po rte d if co nv ic te d; [th e de fen da nt ]

co nf irmed th at he ha d read th e PSR, di sc us se d it wit h hi s co un se l, an d un de rs to od it ;

an d [th e de fen da nt ] ne ve r m ov ed to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea.” See Co rrea -Gu ti erre z v. Un it ed Sta te s, 4 55 F. App ’x 72 2, 7 23 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) (un pu bl is he d p er cu ria m ).

Abr ah am do e s n o t di sp ut e th at he read th e PSR, bu t rat he r arg ue s th at hi s
at to rn ey was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ad vi se hi m th at th e of fen se “ vi rtu al ly en su red ”
de po rta ti on

. H ow ev er, Abr ah am ’s rev is ed PSR cl earl y in di cat ed hi s of fen se ren de red
hi m de po rta bl e. Abr ah am acce pt e d t h i s P S R wit ho ut ob jecti on , an d hi s at to rn ey

c o n f i r m ed at se nt en ci ng , wi th Abr ah am pr es en t an d in op en co ur t, th at he rece i v e d
th e PSR an d di sc us se d it wit h Abr ah am

. Abr ah am ne ve r m o v e d t o wit hd raw hi s
gu il ty pl ea. Thu s, th ere is no “ reas on ab le pr o b a b il it y th at

. . . th e res ul t of th e
pr oc eed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t” ha d Abr ah am ’s a tt or ne y ad vi se d hi m of th e

-5

-im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es of pl ead in g gu il ty. S e e P a d i l la
, 13 0 S. Ct

. at 14 82

.

Bec au s e A b r ah am can no t sa ti sf y St ric kl an d’s pr ejud ic e pr on g, he is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f. Se e A n d e r s o n v. Uni te d St at es , 39 3 F.3 d 74 9, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (n ot in g

3

m ov an t m

us t s at is fy

bo th Str ic kl an d p ro ng s t o b e en ti tl ed to rel ie f).

III.

Fo r th e reas on s ab ov e, we a f f i rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Abr ah am ’s

m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n.

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

W e do no t ad dr es s whe th er co un se l’s rep res en ta ti on “ fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve 3

s ta nd ard of reas on ab le ne ss ” as m eas ur ed by “ pr ev ai li ng pr of es si on al no rm s. ” S e e Pad il la , 13 0 S .Ct. at 14 82

.

-6

-