United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1607

___________________________

Fernando Espinoza

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: December 19, 2013

 Filed: March 21, 2014

____________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

A federal jury found Fernando Espinoza guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500

grams or more of methamphetamine. Espinoza filed a petition for relief from his

conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging a number of different

grounds for relief, including the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
object to a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). The district court

1

found no grounds for relief. Espinoza appeals the district court's ruling. We affirm.

I

Espinoza was indicted for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). 

Moreover, the indictment charged that Espinoza had previously been convicted of a

felony drug offense, thus doubling the mandatoryminimumsentence under 21 U.S.C.

§ 851(a)(1).

At trial, Espinoza admitted to purchasing methamphetamine and the

government put on evidence showing Espinoza was part of a conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine. Additionally, Espinoza stipulated to having a prior felony drug

conviction from 1992, which provided the basis for the § 851 enhancement. 

Unnoticed by the attorneys or the court, the § 851 enhancement notice contained an

error incorrectly listing the District of South Dakota as the district of conviction

rather than the Northern District of Iowa where Espinoza's conviction actually

occurred. Espinoza's attorney did not object to the § 851 enhancement nor did the

government seek to amend the § 851 notice at any point.

The jury found Espinoza guilty on both subsections of the indictment. The

district court sentenced Espinoza to the mandatory minimum of 240 months of

imprisonment, based in part on a pre-sentence report (PSR), which correctly listed

Espinoza's prior felony drug conviction as being from the Northern District of Iowa. 

Espinoza timely filed an appeal. This Court affirmed the conviction. United States

v. Espinoza, 282 F. App'x 504 (8th Cir. 2008).

The Honorable David E. O'Brien, United StatesDistrict Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.

-2-
Espinoza filed a timely pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging seventeen grounds for relief. The district

court appointed counsel, who submitted a supplement to the § 2255 petition adding

a claim that trial counsel wasineffective in failing to object to the allegedly improper

§ 851 enhancement.

After conducting evidentiary hearings, the district court entered an order

dismissing all of Espinoza's claims. The district court granted a certificate of

appealability on all claims.

II

Espinoza appeals the district court's denial of § 2255 relief. Espinoza argues

trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the § 851 enhancement, which

Espinoza argues was improper due to lack of proper notice.2

The Eighth Circuit reviews a district court's denial of a § 2255 petition de

novo. Ortiz v. United States, 664 F.3d 1151, 1164 (8th Cir. 2011).

Title 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) requires the government to provide notice of the

sentencing enhancement before trial, but also providesthat "[c]lerical mistakes in the

information may be amended at any time prior to the pronouncement of sentence."

Espinoza, relying on United States v. Ramirez, 501 F.3d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 2

2007), also argues the allegedly inaccurate § 851 notice deprived the district court of

jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence. However, this court has specifically

held "the prosecution's noncompliance with § 851(a)(1) does not affect the court's

jurisdiction." United States v. Mooring, 287 F.3d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 2002). "'Thus,

the only question that legitimately arises from the prosecution's [failure to comply

with § 851(a)(1)] concerns the court's authority to impose an enhanced sentence. This

is simply not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction.'" Id. at 727-28 (quoting Prou

v. United States, 199 F.3d 37, 45 (1st Cir. 1999)).

-3-
21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). Clerical mistakes are errors "where the government's initial

information still gave the defendant reasonable notice of the government's intent to

rely on a particular conviction." United States v. Higgins, 710 F.3d 839, 844 (8th

Cir.) cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 343 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also United States v. Sturdivant, 513 F.3d 795, 804 (8th Cir. 2008) ("Correcting the

state [of conviction] is a clerical error . . . ."). The § 851 notice requirement is meant

to provide a defendant with "notice of the prior conviction, the effect it would have

on the maximum sentence, and an opportunity to dispute the conviction." United

States v. Timley, 443 F.3d 615, 626 (8th Cir. 2006). Strict compliance with § 851 is

not required, rather the indictment must only provide "reasonable notice of the

Government's intent to rely on a particular conviction and a meaningful opportunity

to be heard." United States v. Curiale, 390 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2004). "In

applying the statute's requirements, courts are careful not to elevate form over

substance." Id. at 1077.

Espinoza now argues counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the

deficient § 851 notice. It is undisputed Espinoza had only one prior drug felony and

the indictment listed correctly the crime, the date of conviction, and the sovereign of

conviction. The only error related to the federal district court in which Espinoza was

convicted. We find that, much like a mistake as to state of conviction, Sturdivant,

513 F.3d at 804, the mistake as to the district in which the conviction occurred is a

clerical error where the indictment "still gave the defendant reasonable notice of the

government's intent to rely on a particular conviction." Higgins, 710 F.3d at 844. 

In fact, Espinoza stipulated to having a 1992 felony drug conviction, further showing

Espinoza was on notice of the government's intent to rely on his sole felony drug

conviction for purposes of the § 851 enhancement.

While the government failed to file the required superseding indictment to

correct the clerical error, the PSR, as adopted by the district court at sentencing,

correctly listed Espinoza's prior conviction, further putting Espinoza on notice. "The

-4-
error in the § 851 notice did not deprive [Espinoza] of notice about which conviction

the government intended to use, the enhancement of his sentence for which they were

asking, or an opportunity to dispute the conviction." Higgins, 710 F.3d at 844. 

Therefore, to find the § 851 notice was insufficient would be to improperly elevate

the form of § 851 over its substance. Curiale, 390 F.3d at 1077.

Because the § 851 notice was adequate, Espinoza has failed to show his trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to such notice. United States v. Kelly,

581 F.2d 152, 153 (8th Cir. 1978) ("Petitioner's remaining contention of ineffective

assistance of counsel must fail, since there is no merit to the allegations of error upon

which the contention is premised.").3

III

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

We have examined all other issuesraised by Espinoza but find no other claims

3

merit discussion. Therefore, we affirm the district court on those issues without

comment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

-5-