Source: https://casetext.com/case/us-v-headley
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 16:48:59
Document Index: 627228961

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

U.S. v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079 | Casetext Search + Citator
Accordingly, our Court of Appeals has held that the failure to argue an appropriate downward departure…
U.S. v. Isaza-Zapata
At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied the two-point downward adjustment, stating only that "I…
Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARVA HEADLEY, A/K/A "BRENDA" APPELLANT
923 F.2d 1079 (3d Cir. 1991)
holding that sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance but remanding the matter to the district court so it could consider applicability of an adjustment if it deemed "such an adjustment [was] warranted"
Summary of this case from United States v. Sepling
Argued December 13, 1990.
Decided January 24, 1991. Rehearing Denied February 28, 1991.
Before SLOVITER and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges, and SAROKIN, District Judge.
Hon. Lee H. Sarokin, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
On appeal, Headley argues that her counsel's failure to argue the appropriateness of adjustment for her role in the offense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, that the court erred in not considering adjustment for her role in the offense sua sponte, and that the district court's refusal to depart downward was based on its mistaken belief that it lacked the legal authority to do so on the basis of family ties and responsibilities.
Headley also argues that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support her convictions and that the district court's admission of dog sniffing evidence was an abuse of discretion. After consideration, we reject these arguments without discussion.
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. The "not ordinarily relevant" language of section 5H1.6 suggests that in extreme circumstances departure based on family ties and responsibilities is permissible. See United States v. Sharpsteen, 913 F.2d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The clear implication of section 5H1.6 is that if the court finds that the circumstances related to family ties and relationships are extraordinary, it is not precluded as a matter of law from taking them into account in making a downward departure."); see also United States v. Deigert, 916 F.2d 916, 919 (4th Cir. 1990).
While district courts have the authority to depart for extraordinary family circumstances, every court to consider the issue of departure based on the effect that sentencing a single parent to prison will have on minor children has found the circumstances not to be extraordinary. In United States v. Brand, 907 F.2d 31 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 585, 112 L.Ed.2d 590 (1990), the court of appeals reversed the order of the district court departing downward because defendant was a single mother with two small children. The appellate court found departure to be clearly erroneous, stating that "[a]lthough there doubtless are circumstances in which unique family responsibilities might justify a downward departure," the imprisonment of a single parent was not extraordinary. Id. at 33; see also United States v. Goff, 907 F.2d 1441, 1446 (4th Cir. 1990) ("[Defendant] has shown nothing more than that which innumerable defendants could no doubt establish: namely, that the imposition of prison sentences normally disrupts . . . parental relationships.").
Headley concedes that trial counsel did not specifically call this guideline to the district court's attention, and did not request the court to make a finding that her role was minor or minimal. Under these circumstances, the court had no affirmative duty sua sponte to make a determination whether adjustment was appropriate. Although Headley argues that the district court's duty to consider role in offense is implicit in section 1B1.2(b) ("[a]fter determining the appropriate offense guideline section . . . determine the applicable guideline range in accordance with § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct)"), this section contemplates that the court will evaluate a defendant's relevant conduct to exclude conduct that was neither within the scope of the jointly-undertaken activity nor reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, and does not require the district court to consider whether a two or four point adjustment is warranted for defendant's role in offense.
While we cannot find that the district court erred in failing to consider the adjustment issue sua sponte, Headley's argument that her trial counsel was ineffective for failure to argue the appropriateness of adjustment is more persuasive. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not generally entertained on direct appeal. See United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1989). This court has held repeatedly, "the proper avenue for pursuing such claims is through a collateral proceeding in which the factual basis for the claim may be developed." Id. at 598. There is, however, a narrow exception to the rule that defendants cannot attack the efficacy of their counsel on direct appeal. Where the record is sufficient to allow determination of ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing to develop the facts is not needed. Government of Virgin Islands v. Zepp, 748 F.2d 125, 133 (3d Cir. 1984) (defendant's counsel was ineffective because of a conflict of interest); see also Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d at 598 (no direct review "[u]nless the record sufficiently establishes a basis for our review").
In this case, there is no need for further factual development. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to establish ineffective assistance of counsel a criminal defendant must show that counsel's conduct was deficient ( i.e. "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance"), id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, and that the deficiency resulted in prejudice to the defense ( i.e., "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"). Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.
The Commentary to Section 3B1.2 explains that the role in offense adjustment is designed "for a defendant who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. One of the examples contained in the Commentary to this section illustrating an appropriate downward adjustment for a minimal participant involves a defendant who was hired by a marijuana importation conspiracy to offload part of a single shipment of marijuana or a case where an individual was recruited as a courier for a single smuggling transaction involving a small amount of drugs. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 comment. (n. 2).
We note that after Headley's sentencing there was a clarification by the Commission, effective November 1, 1990, of the conduct that is relevant to such an adjustment. The introductory Commentary to Chapter 3, Part B (Role in Offense) now provides that the determination of a defendant's role in the offense is to be made on the basis of all conduct within the scope of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). U.S.S.G. Ch. 3, Pt. B, intro. comment. The Commentary to section 1B1.3 provides that in a case of criminal activity undertaken in concert with others, the defendant is held accountable for the reasonably foreseeable conduct of other defendants. But "where it is established that the conduct was neither within the scope of the defendant's agreement, nor was reasonably foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity the defendant agreed to jointly undertake, such conduct is not included in establishing the defendant's offense level." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment. (n. 1).
We do not suggest that an adjustment for role in the offense was required. The fact that a defendant's participation in a drug operation was limited to that of courier is not alone indicative of a minor or minimal role. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989) (determination of minor or minimal role status "turns upon culpability, not courier status"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1957, 109 L.Ed.2d 319 (1990); see also United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 434 (4th Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit recently said, "the culpability of a defendant courier must depend necessarily on such factors as the nature of the defendant's relationship to other participants, the importance of the defendant's actions to the success of the venture, and the defendant's awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise." United States v. Garcia, 920 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1990) (district court's refusal to depart downward under § 3B1.2 was not clearly erroneous); see also § 3B1.2, comment. (n. 1) (lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise is evidence of minimal role in offense). On the other hand, the fact that Headley's actual criminal conduct was dwarfed by the conduct of other co-conspirators and that she lived in Brooklyn while the conspiracy was centered in Philadelphia are factors that suggest that her involvement, knowledge and culpability may have been significantly less than the other SNO members.
It follows that because counsel's ineffectiveness, which deprived Headley of the opportunity to have the district court consider whether she qualified for an adjustment under § 3B1.2, is plain from the record, we must remand to give Headley the opportunity to make this argument to the district court. There is no need for this court to vacate Headley's sentence at this time. The district court can do so should it determine that such an adjustment, based on the relativity of Headley's conduct to the total offense behavior, is appropriate.
holding counsel ineffective because “no rational basis to believe that ... counsel's failure to argue [sentencing] adjustment was a strategic choice”
Summary of this case from McPhearson v. United States
holding single mother of five children ranging from age 11 months to 11 years did not present extraordinary circumstance; observing that every court to consider departure based on effect that imprisoning a single parent would have on minor children has found circumstances not extraordinary
holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claim could be heard on direct appeal where "[t]here [was] no rational basis to believe that [the defendant's] trial counsel's failure to argue [for a downward sentencing] adjustment was a strategic choice"
Summary of this case from United States v. Alleyne
finding defendant's counsel ineffective where counsel failed to argue for an applicable downward departure
finding that counsel's failure to seek a "potentially fruitful" downward adjustment under guidelines fell outside prevailing professional norms and therefore was ineffective
Summary of this case from Stinson v. U.S.
finding below an objective standard of reasonableness trial counsel's failure to request a downward adjustment based on the defendant's minor or minimal role in the offense where counsel had been put on notice by the presentence investigation report that such a request "might have been fruitful"
In Headley, we embraced the Second Circuit's analysis for determining a defendant's culpability by considering "'such factors as the nature of the defendant's relationship to other participants, the importance of the defendant's actions to the success of the venture, and the defendant's awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise.'"
noting that "[t]he fact that a defendant's participation in a drug operation was limited to that of courier is not alone indicative of a minor or minimal role"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Surine
In Headley, the defendant acted on several occasions as a courier for a drug organization that operated in Miami, Brooklyn, and Philadelphia. See id. at 1081.
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Berry
In United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 1084 (3d Cir. 1991), we outlined the factors to be considered in determining whether a drug courier is a minor or minimal participant within the meaning of Section 3B1.2. These factors include "the nature of the defendant's relationship to other participants, the importance of the defendant's actions to the success of the venture, and the defendant's awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise."
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Contreras-Saldana
In Headley, we delineated a set of factors for the district court to consider in determining whether a defendant should be considered a minor participant in an offense: "[T]he culpability of a defendant courier must depend necessarily on such factors as the nature of the defendant's relationship to other participants, the importance of the defendant's actions to the success of the venture, and the defendant's awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise."
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Shall
noting that claims of ineffectiveness should be brought through a collateral proceeding to develop the factual basis of the claim, unless the record is sufficient to make the assessment on direct appeal
Summary of this case from Marshall v. Hendricks
In United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 1084-85 (3d Cir. 1991), we recognized that defense counsel representing a defendant who served as a drug courier for a large conspiracy on only a few occasions was ineffective for failing to argue that the defendant was entitled to consideration for a base level adjustment for being a minor participant.
In Headley, we quoted approvingly the Second Circuit's view that such a determination "must depend necessarily on such factors as the nature of the defendant's relationship to other participants, the importance of the defendant's actions to the success of the venture, and the defendant's awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise."
In United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079 (3d Cir. 1991), the defendant had been sentenced based on the entire amount of drugs distributed by the conspiracy, even though her involvement in the conspiracy may have been limited to acting as a courier.
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Collado
remanding for hearing where there was " rational basis" in the record to believe that sentencing counsel's failure, to argue for downward adjustment in Sentencing Guidelines for minor role, was a "strategic choice"
applying same factors
noting that fact that defendant was a courier in a drug operation "is not alone indicative of a minor or minimal role"
iterating theStrickland standard and holding defendant's trial counsel ineffective for failing to request a downward departure in sentencing due to defendant's minimal participation in a drug distribution scheme
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Khalil
noting psychological impact that imprisonment of single mother would have on five children below age of eleven
discussing United States v. Brand, 907 F.2d 31 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1014, 111 S.Ct. 585, 112 L.Ed.2d 590
Summary of this case from U.S v. Bissel