Opinion ID: 6348792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In November 2019, authorities with the Department of Homeland Security investigated the shipment of a firearm suppressor from China to the United States, obtaining a search warrant for Mr. Seamster’s home because he was the consignee listed on the package. Execution of the search warrant and of consent-based searches of outbuildings and vehicles on Mr. Seamster’s property resulted in the seizure of the suppressor, as well as a National Ordnance 1903A3 .30-06 caliber rifle, a Savage Arms 93R17 .17 caliber rifle, and approximately ten grams of methamphetamine. The suppressor was not registered. And, at the time of the search, Mr. Seamster had a prior felony conviction prohibiting him from possessing a firearm. Through a three-count indictment, a grand jury charged Mr. Seamster with felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession of an unregistered silencer, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d); and possession of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). In accord with the advice of counsel, Mr. Seamster agreed to plead guilty to the possession of an unregistered silencer charge in exchange for the Government dismissing the other two charges. When pleading guilty, Mr. Seamster admitted he (1) “purchased multiple silencers online, although [he] only received one”; (2) “knew the characteristics and purpose of the silencer made it 2 Appellate Case: 22-4003 Document: 010110695289 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 3 registrable under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record but that it was not registered to [him]”; (3) “used the silencer and that it was in operating condition”; and (4) knew “the silencer is a firearm under 26 USC Section 5845(a)(7) and that [his] conduct violated 26 USC 5861(d).” ROA Vol. 1 at 57; see also id. at 25–26. While entering his guilty plea, Mr. Seamster also advised the court that he had adequate opportunity to confer with counsel and counsel advised him about the plea agreement. The plea agreement obligated the Government to recommend a sentence at the low end of the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, and the parties contemplated that the low end of the range would be around 18 months. A Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) advanced a Sentencing Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months. The district court adopted the PSR without objection. In his allocution, Mr. Seamster admitted the firearms were on his property and the methamphetamine belonged to him. The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Seamster did not file an appeal. Eight months after sentencing, Mr. Seamster commenced the current proceeding by filing a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.2 Through his § 2255 motion, Mr. Seamster argued counsel provided ineffective assistance by not (1) investigating whether the suppressor was a silencer that needed to be 2 Although Mr. Seamster has now completed his term of imprisonment, by virtue of still serving supervised release, he remains “in custody” for purposes of being able to pursue § 2255 relief. See United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987, 989 n.1 (10th Cir. 2004) (concluding individual on supervised release at time he files § 2255 motion is “in custody” and may pursue relief). 3 Appellate Case: 22-4003 Document: 010110695289 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 4 registered; (2) filing pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress; (3) negotiating a more favorable plea agreement; and (4) filing a notice of appeal.3 The Government filed a response, with an affidavit from counsel attached. Counsel averred that while he conducted some research on whether the suppresser was a silencer that needed to be registered, he did not believe he could obtain dismissal of the charge and thought it beneficial to focus the plea agreement on the unregistered silencer charge because doing so permitted for the dismissal of the methamphetamine charge and the felon in possession of firearms charge. Counsel believed, in the context of sentencing, the methamphetamine and firearms charges were the more serious charges so there was an advantage to Mr. Seamster pleading guilty to the unregistered silencer charge. Counsel also expressed concern that if he pursued dismissal of the unregistered silencer charge, the prosecutor might be less willing to offer Mr. Seamster a favorable plea agreement. Mr. Seamster filed a reply and a declaration regarding his notice of appeal issue, in which he admitted counsel discussed the probability of success if he pursued an appeal. 3 Although in his § 2255 motion, as part of his second and third claims, Mr. Seamster’s pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented arguments about more than the suppressor/silencer, he focuses his arguments in his application for a COA on counsel’s (1) investigation of the suppressor and how dismissal of the unregistered silencer charge might have benefited his position and (2) failure to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to these two matters. See United States v. McIntosh, 723 F. App’x 613, 615 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (declining to consider arguments raised in a § 2255 motion when the appellant made “no substantive arguments concerning [those] rulings” in his COA application and opening brief); Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief.”). 4 Appellate Case: 22-4003 Document: 010110695289 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 5 The district court denied Mr. Seamster’s § 2255 motion, holding Mr. Seamster did not establish deficient performance on any of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded counsel had a strategic basis for not further investigating whether the suppressor was a silencer that needed to be registered in that counsel reasonably believed a conviction for possession of an unregistered silencer was more favorable at sentencing than a methamphetamine conviction and/or a felon in possession conviction. The court also concluded counsel discussed the possibility of an appeal with Mr. Seamster, and Mr. Seamster did not ask counsel to file a notice of appeal. Mr. Seamster requests a COA from this court.