NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0131n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 16, 2007 No. 05-2121 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MI GUEL VAL ENZ UEL A, P etitioner -Appellant,

v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN O P I N I O N

Be for e : B OG G S, C hie f Judg e ; a nd M ERRI TT a nd M OORE, C ir c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla nt M iguel V a le nzu e la (“ Va le nzu e la ” ) a

pp e a ls fr om the dis tr ic t cou rt ’s jud g me nt de nying his 28 U. S.C. § 225 5 mo tio n to

vacate his conviction for c onspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in excess of 1,000 kil og ra ms. Va le nzu e la

argue d th a t hi s tr ia l c ouns e l w a s ine ff e c tiv e be c a

us e c ouns e l a dmi tte d in

his opening statement that Va lenzuela had be en involved in one dr ug transac tion. The d i s t rict cour t conclude d that the attorney ’s admissions we re part of a re asonable trial strateg y and did not prejudice Valenzuela. B eca

use Va lenzuela has not shown that his counsel’s perfor mance was deficient and beca use the district cour

t did not abuse its discr etion by ref using to hold an e videntiary hear ing, w e AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

.2 I. BACKG ROUND On September 4, 2001, a g rand jury char g ed Valenzuela and seven others with one count of conspirac y

to possess w ith intent to distribute marijuana in e x cess of 1,000 kilogr ams, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) and § 846. V alenzuela’ s case proce eded to tria l. The g overnme nt introduced, a

mong othe r evide nce, a series of

audio tapes r ecor ding c onversations between Valenzuela a

nd g overnme nt informant J ames McManig al (“ McManig al”) , in which they discussed marijuana shipments and pay

ments, and the testimony of Va lenzuela’s co- conspirator s detailing Valenzuela’ s involvement in the conspirac y . Valenzuela took the stand in his own defe nse and testified that M cM an i gal as k ed him to sell forty pounds of marijuana

in order to r aise money

for McManig al’s legal fe es an d that he agree d, but that he was not re g ularly involved in selling marijuana . On Marc h 25, 2002, a jury convicted V alenzuela as char g ed. Valenzuela a ppeale d, and a panel of this court af

firmed his convic tion. Un ite d Sta te s v . V ale nz ue la , 88 F. App’ x 909 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion). Valenzuela the n filed a moti o n t o v ac at e his conviction pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255. Valenzuela a sserted that he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of trial counsel be cause of that counse l’s “ac knowledg ment befor e the jury of Petitioner’s g uilt without first obtaining his c onsent to such a

s t ra t egy , ” J o i n tAp p en d i x (“ J

. A. ”) at 2 1 (§ 2 2 5 5 P et

. at ¶ 7 ), an d re qu es t ed an ev i d en t i ary h ea ri n g. Th e g o v e r

n me n t f il e d a me mo r an d

u m in o p p o s it io n . T h e ma g is tr a te ju d g e is s u e d a r e p o rt a nd

rec ommendation (“R& R”) re commendingthat Valenzuela’ s motion be denied, and V alenzuela f iled ob je c tio ns . O n Augus t

4 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d V a le nzu e la ’s mot ion , a do pte d th e ma g istrate judge ’s R&R, and de nied Vale nzuela a ce rtificate of appe alability . Valenzuela the n filed an application for a certificate of appea lability in this court, which was gra nted on May

4, 2006, on theBe cause we c onclude that Va lenzuela has not shown that his counsel’ s perf ormanc e wa s 1 defic ient, we ne ed not addr ess whethe r Va lenzuela suffe red pr ejudice. Ba rn es v . E lo , 339 F.3d 496, 503 (6th Cir. 2003). 3 issue of “w hether

Valenzuela’ s counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e by admitting to Vale nzuela’s g uilt during the tria l.” J .A. at 98. II. AN AL YSI S A. Ineff ect ive Assistance of Counsel 1. Stand ard of Review B e c a us e ine ff e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e -o f- c ouns e l c la ims pr e se nt m ixed qu e sti on s o f l aw a

nd fa c t,

we r eview suc h claims de novo. United States v. W agner , 382 F.3d 598, 615 ( 6th Cir. 2004). 2. Ana lys is a. Deficient P erform ance I ne ff e c tiv e -a ssist ance- of- cou ns el c lai ms are an alyz ed u nd er t he fa mil ia r t wo -p a rt te st s e t f or th in Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). “F irst, the defe ndant must show that counsel’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt.” Id. at 687. “Second, the defe ndant must show that t h e d eficient perf ormanc e pre

judiced the de fense .” Id. 1 Va le nzu e la ’s tr ia l c ouns e l, R on a ld R . G old (“ Go ld” ), sa id d

ur inghis op e nin g state me nt: Now somewhe re a long the way , somewher e along the w ay Eduardo [R odrig uez] came to Mr. Valenzuela a y ear , y ear and a half ag o, and said, y ou know, Mr. M cManig al has g ot a lot of problems. He ’s g ot trouble with the law. He has no money . He needs som e money , and he sells marijuana, a nd we’ d like to know and Mr. McManig al went up to him, too, a nd said, please can y ou sell this marijuana for me. That wa s my

client’s mistake. And as y ou hear

the tapes the problem is this -- and by the way , y ou will hear that Mr. Valenzuela did not benef it one bit out of t his. I f a hundr ed dollars he re a nd the re y ou ’re goingto h e ar m ill ion s, if a hund re d, or tw o hun dr e d a

tho us and c a me into his pocket, he wa s incidental and that was not the purpose

.4

J.A. a t 99 (D e f. Op e nin g State me nt) . G old the n dis c us se d th e c on c e pt o f e ntr a pme nt a nd the ro le of the g overnme nt in persuading Valenzuela to help sell limi ted quantities of mar ijuana, stating at one point: “ What he did in order to help out Eduardo, his fr iend, and Mr. Mc Manig al, he de cided and ag ree d to se lling the marijuana and in e x chang e g ave them the money . That’s the mone y that y ou’ll hear

about the money

transfe r.” J.A. at 100 (De f. Ope ning Stateme nt). After discussing the g overnme nt’s entra

pment of Va lenzuela, Gold descr ibed Valenzuela as a man of g ood char acte r and detailed his community

service activities, then stated: I ’m [si c] me an, he’s trying to ge t by the best he c an. B ut above a ll he’s a joy ful man. He dr inks too much an d he knows that. And he say s things whe n he’s dr inking so me times th at he shou ldn ’t . B ut you kn ow , h e ’s no t a

dr ugde a le r. He ’s no t a me mbe r o f t

his 12 -p e rs on

c on sp ir a c y

wh e re he pl ann ed any

thi ng . H e did

a stu pid thing. He tried to help his fr i en d s , and he shouldn’t have done that and that was wr o n g. J .A. at 101 (D ef

. Opening Statement). V alenzuela a rgues that Gold’s pe rfor

mance was de ficient b e c a u s e t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s am o u n t e d t o a c o n c e s s i o nt h a tV a l e n z u e l a w a s g u i l t y. To show that his counsel’s pe rfor mance was de ficient, a

defe ndant must show “that counse l made error s so serious t hat counsel was not functioning as the ‘c ounsel’ guara nteed the de fenda

nt by the Six th Amendment.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687. “[T] he def endant must show that counsel’s repr esentation fell below an objec tive standard of rea sonablene ss.” Id. a t6 8 8

. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, a def endant may

sho w t h at h is counsel’s per formanc e wa s deficie nt by showing that the attorne y

conce ded that the de fenda nt was guilty as cha

rg ed without seekingthe def endant’ s consent. W

iley

v . S owd e rs , 647 F.2d 642, 649-50 (6th Cir.) (conc luding that two attorney s’ perf o rm an ce s wer e defic ient beca

use they “re peate dly

stated to the jury

that petitioner wa s ‘g uilty ,’ ‘guilty as cha rg ed,’ and ‘guilty

bey ond a re asonable doubt’”), cert. de nied , 4 54 U. S. 1 09 1 ( 19 81 ); Ashley v . Koehler , No.Be cause the g overnme nt was pre pare d to introduce a udio tapes re cordingconver sations 2 in which Vale nzuela discussed selling marijuana as we ll as the testimony

of numerous a lleg ed c o- c on sp ir a tor s, a

de c isi on to c on c e de that V a le nzu e la wa s guil ty

of a c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith intent to dist ribute a small amount of ma rijuana in hope s of avoidinga convic tion for involvement in the larg er c onspiracy may very well have been a

rea sonable strateg y . Cf. United States v. W

ilks , 46 F.3d 640, 644 ( 7th Cir. 1995) (“In conce ding Wilks’ g uilt with respect to the one ounce transac tion [ but not a differ ent transa ction involving lar g er dr ug quantities], counsel lent cre dibilit y

to his arg ument that Wil ks was only a small fish in the drugworld.”)

. 5 87-1482, 1988 WL12146, at *5 (6th Cir. Fe b. 18, 1988) (unpublished opinion) (c oncludi n g that counsel’s statements during closing argument, that “‘[w]e do not come bef ore you asking to find Mr. As hle y no t gu ilty ’ an d ‘I thi nk the c on sid e ra tio n co me s dow n to whe the r or no t he’ s g uil ty of F ir st Deg ree Homicide, or Second Deg ree Homicide,’” “could be deeme d a denial of eff ective a ssistance of counse l” but wer e not pre judicial to the defe ndant), cert. de nied , 486 U.S. 1013 (1988). I n this case, Gold did not conc ede that Valenzuela wa s g uilty as char g ed, or of any crime at

a ll. Go ld s pe c if

ic a lly de nie d that Va le nzu e la wa s a me mbe r o f t

he larg e c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith intent to dist ribute marijuana in excess of 1,000 kilogr ams, the cr ime char g ed. Gold did admit that Valenzuela

a g r e e d w it h M c M an ig a l t o s e ll a

s ma ll e r qu an ti ty o f ma r ij u an a , w h ic h , a

b s e n t a ny

a dd iti on a l argume nt , w o u l d e f f e c t ive ly c on c e de that V a le nzu e la

wa s guil ty

of a c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss with intent to dis t ribute marijuana , albeit a smaller quantity

. Gold took a furthe r step to protec t

2 V a le n zu e la ’ s inte r e s ts , h o w e v e r , b y a s s e rti n g th a t e v e n th is n o r ma ll y c r im in a l a c ti v it

y w a s not criminal in this inst ance beca use of g overnme nt entrapme nt. Gold did not concede Vale nzuela’s g uilt at all, then, but rather e mploy ed a r easona ble trial strate g y

in light of the g overnme nt’s substantial e vidence ag ainst Valenzuela. Cf. Volpe v. J ohnson , No. 94-2113, 1995 WL684544, at *1 (6 th C ir . N ov . 16, 19 95 ) (unp ub lis he d opin ion ) (c on c lud ing that couns e l pe rf or me d r e a so na

bly by c on c e din g that the de fe nd ant “b e a t [ the vic tim ] me rc ile ssl y ” but ar g uin g that he wa s not guil ty6

of fi rs t- de g re e mur de r) ; Nielsen v. Hopk ins , 58 F. 3 d 1 3 3 1 , 1335 (8th Cir. 1995) (c oncluding that counsel perf

ormed rea sonably by conce ding that the defe ndant shot the victim but arg uing that he did not possess the nece ssary intent for first-de g ree murder)

. b. D ut y t o C ons ult Ev e n w he n e mpl oyinga

re a so na ble tr ia l strate g y , h ow e ve r, an atto rn e y “ ha s a duty to c on su lt with the client re g arding‘ im p o r ta nt d e c is io ns,’ including questions of overa rchingdefe nse strate g y ,” F lo r id a v . Ni xon , 5 43 U. S. 1 75 , 1 87 (2 00 4) , w hic h ma y inc lud e ob ta ini nga

c lie nt’ s c on se nt t o certain strateg ies, see, e .g. , United States v. Holman , 314 F.3d 837, 840- 44 (7th Cir. 2002) (c o n cl u d i n g t h at co n ce d i n g gu i l t t o o n e co u n t o f a mu l t i -c o u n t i n d i ct m en t i s a va l i d d ef en s e s t ra t egy bu t on e wh ic h r e qu ir e s a c lie nt’ s c on se nt) . V a le nzu ela corr e c tly no te s th a t it

is n ot n e c e ssa

ry to admit a client’s g uilt in order to pursue an e ntrapment de fense , see Mathews v. United States , 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988), and a rgues that Gold’s a ssistance wa s deficie nt b ec au s e he did not see k Valenzuela’ s consent bef

ore a dmitti ng that Valenzuela ha d at l east li mited involvement in criminal

a c t i v i t y. B e c a u s e h e i s s e e k i n g r e l i e f

u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 , V a l e n z u e l a

b e ar s t h e b u r d e no f

p r o v i n g b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that his counsel wa s deficie nt. See P ough v. United States , 442 F.3d 959, 964 (6t h C i r. 2 0 0 6). Va lenzuela has not introduce d any evidenc e that Gold did not seek V a l e n z u e l a ’ s c o n s e n to r

d i d n o tc o n s u l tw i t hV a l e n z u e l a a b o u td e f e n s e s t r a t e g y. A c c o r d i n g l y, Va le nzu e la

ha s f a ile d to sh owthat G old ’s a ssi sta nc e wa s d e fi c ie nt.7

B. R e fusalto Hol d an E vid e nt iar y He ar ing 1. Stand ard of Review We reviewfor abuse of

discretion a district c ourt’s dec ision whether to hold an e videntiary hear ing on a

§ 2255 motion. Smith v. United States , 348 F.3d 545, 550 ( 6th Cir. 2003). 2. Ana lys is Valenzuela a

rgues that t he dis trict court erre d by ref using to hold an evidentiar y hear ing on his ineffe ct i v e as s i s tance of counse l claim. Under § 2255, a prisoner

is entitled to an evidentiary hear ing “ [u] nless the motion and the files and r ecor ds of the ca se conc lusively show that the prisoner is e nti tle d to no re lie f. ” 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 5; se e als o Turner v. United States , 1 83 F .3 d 4 74 , 4 77 (6 th Cir. 1999), cert. de nied , 528 U.S. 1195 (2000) (“Where there is a fac tual dispute, the habeas court must hold an evidentiary

hear ing to de termine the truth of the petitioner’s c laims.”). We have noted that “the burden on the pe titioner in a habeas case for establishing an entitlement to a n evidentiar

y hear ing is r el at i v el y l i gh t.” Turner , 183 F.3d at 477. Howeve r, we have a lso affirme d a district

c ourt ’s re fu sa l to ho ld a

n e vid e nti ary

he ari ngwh e n a

pr iso ne r’ s af

fi davit in sup po rt

did no t c on ta in “any statement ra ising a

fac tual question reg arding the ef fec tiveness of his trial counse l.” Id. at 476- 77 . A s e xpla ine d ab ov e , G old e mpl oy e d a

re a so na ble tr ia l stra

te g y , a nd Va le nzu e la

did no t su bmi t an af fidavit or any

other e vidence indicating that Gold did not seek Va lenzuela’s consent or did not consult with Valenzuela a bout defe nse strate g y . I n the abse nce of a nyevidenc e ra ising a fac tual d i s p u t e, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o nb y re fu s i n g t o h o l d

an ev i d en t i ary

h ea ri n g.8 III . C ON CL USI ON B e c a us e Va le nzu e la

ha s n ot s ho wn

that hi s c ouns e l’ s pe rf

or manc e wa s de fi c ie nt a

nd be c a us e the district court did not abuse its discre tion by ref using to hold an evide ntiary hear ing, w e AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

.