United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11184

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jacqueline Marie Guin, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-952

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jacqueline Marie Guin, federal prisoner # 58612-177, filed a counseled 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in which she alleged that her trial attorney was

ineffective for failing to fulfill his duty to meaningfully consult with her 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11184 Document: 00516206738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 20-11184

2

regarding an appeal. The district court denied the § 2255 motion, and we

granted a certificate of appealability.

“We review a district court’s conclusions with regard to a petitioner’s 

§ 2255 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo . . . [and] § 2255 

findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Molina-Uribe, 429 F.3d 514, 

518 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To 

establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Guin must show that her counsel’s 

performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced her defense. 

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-94 (1984). Counsel has a 

constitutional duty to “consult with the defendant about an appeal when 

there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to 

appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or 

(2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he 

was interested in appealing.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000).

In this context, “consult” means “advising the defendant about the 

advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal and making a reasonable 

effort to discover the defendant’s wishes.” Id. at 478. If counsel does consult 

with the defendant, “the question of deficient performance is easily 

answered: Counsel performs in a professionally unreasonable manner only by 

failing to follow the defendant’s express instructions with respect to an 

appeal.” Id.

After an evidentiary hearing featuring testimony from both Guin and 

her trial counsel, the district court found that her counsel was credible and 

that he did meaningfully consult with her about filing a potential appeal. The 

district court’s factual findings are plausible in light of the record read as a 

whole, and they are therefore not clearly erroneous. See United States v. 

Sanders, 942 F.2d 894, 897 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district court 

Case: 20-11184 Document: 00516206738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 20-11184

3

did not err in denying Guin’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, see 

Molina-Uribe, 429 F.3d at 518, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-11184 Document: 00516206738 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2022