Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180709_0004691.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:16:05+00:00

Document:
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Huy Van Tran's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 (Dkt. No. 1). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.
Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 12 U.S.C. section 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. United States v. Huy Van Tran, No. CR15-0120-JCC, Dkt. No. 603 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2016). The Court sentenced him to 96 months of imprisonment. Id. at Dkt. Nos. 1003, 1004. Petitioner appealed his conviction, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal on the advice of counsel. Id. at Dkt. No. 1042; (Dkt. No. 1 at 21). He now moves to correct his sentence under section 2255.
The plea agreement is not ambiguous. On its face it allows the Government to present arguments at sentencing regarding the applicability of the Sentencing Guidelines, specifically “including an enhancement for obstruction.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 41); see United States v. Ajugwo, 82 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 1996) (if a plea agreement is clear on its face, a court will not look to extrinsic evidence). The Government agreed not to prosecute Petitioner for additional conduct known at the time of the plea or arising out of the investigation. (Id.) Defendant's argument that this provision bars a sentencing enhancement is patently unreasonable when the enhancement was clearly contemplated in plea negotiations and explicitly included in the agreement. Therefore, no breach occurred, and Petitioner is entitled to no relief on this ground.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must show both that counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner's defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). Petitioner argues that his counsel acted unreasonably by failing to raise a breach of the plea agreement or object to the enhancement at sentencing. (Dkt. No. 23.) Counsel's failure to investigate or argue a meritless issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). Given the unambiguous language of the plea agreement, Petitioner's breach of plea theory was clearly meritless. Supra section II.A. Therefore, Petitioner's attorneys acted reasonably in deciding not to object to the obstruction enhancement at sentencing or on appeal, and Petitioner is entitled to no relief on this ground.
The record before the Court conclusively shows that Petitioner is entitled to no relief. Therefore, holding an evidentiary hearing or seeking additional briefing would serve no purpose, and Petitioner's request for collateral relief should be denied without conducting an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 921 F.2d 207, 211 (9th Cir. 1990).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.