Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180417_0000564.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:39:11+00:00

Document:
In 2016, Defendant Michael Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of a controlled substance, heroin, and received a prison sentence of 97 months, to be followed by four years of supervised release. Defendant now seeks to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 49). He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's failure to object to the allegedly improper consideration of a prior misdemeanor battery conviction in the calculation of his criminal history for purposes of sentencing, and requests that the Court issue an amended judgment sentencing him to a prison term of 70 months. Because the Court properly attributed one point in calculating Defendant's criminal history due to his prior misdemeanor battery conviction, his counsel's failure to object to the consideration of the conviction in calculating Defendant's criminal history does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's motion is denied.
In 2015, Defendant was charged in a 14-count indictment with distributing controlled substances, conspiring to distribute controlled substances, conspiring to commit money laundering, and promoting, managing, establishing, carrying on, or facilitating unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). On August 11, 2016, Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the Government, and pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of a controlled substance, heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In accordance with the plea agreement, the Government agreed to seek dismissal of the remaining charges, to recommend a sentence at the low end of the recommended U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range, and to not oppose a “safety valve” adjustment, so long as Defendant met the requirements of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
After Defendant pleaded guilty, a U.S. Probation Officer (“USPO”) prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSR”) and submitted it to the Court on December 5, 2016. The USPO calculated the total offense level as 29 and Defendant's criminal history as a category II. Defendant received a criminal history category of II due to his receipt of two points for prior offenses-one point for a prior misdemeanor battery conviction and one point for a prior perjury conviction. Defendant was convicted of battery in California state court, and according to the PSR, Defendant received three years' probation for this offense. The PSR identified the applicable guideline imprisonment range as 97 months to 121 months. The Court determined that the PSR was accurate and sentenced Defendant to a prison term at the low end of the guideline imprisonment range, 97 months.
Proceeding pro se, Defendant filed the current motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on August 18, 2017. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel allowed the Court to adopt an inaccurate calculation of his criminal history that improperly considered Defendant's prior conviction for misdemeanor battery in California state court. He alleges the improper consideration of this conviction prejudiced him in two ways: (1) he received an improper increase in his criminal history category, from I to II, and (2) he became ineligible for a two-level “safety-valve” reduction in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. He requests that the Court reduce his prison sentence to 70 months.
Because the motion, files, and records of this case conclusively show that the PSR properly calculated Defendant's criminal history category as a category II, Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the calculation of his criminal history category. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to relief, and the Court denies his motion without an evidentiary hearing.
A. Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant argues that “[u]nder U.S.S.G. Section 4A1.2(c)(1), a violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 242 qualifies for one criminal history point only if ‘the sentence was a term of probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty days.' ” Citing United States v. Caldwell,  he argues that because he paid a fine instead of serving any portion of his custodial sentence, he should not have been assessed a criminal history point for his prior battery conviction. Defendant alleges that his counsel's failure to object to the additional point resulting from Defendant's prior battery conviction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, and that this error resulted in a higher criminal history category and his disqualification for a “safety valve” reduction. Defendant misconstrues the applicable Guidelines and Caldwell, and cannot meet either prong of Strickland.
1. Defendant properly received a criminal history point for his prior misdemeanor battery conviction.
(d) Add 2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence . . . .

References: § 2255
 § 1952
 § 841
 § 5
 § 2255
 § 5
 v.