Opinion ID: 3046571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Champion

Text: Champion makes one substantive ineffective-assistance claim: trial counsel failed to object at the sentencing hearing to the PIR’s assessment that she played a leadership role in the conspiracy. Champion’s plea agreement provides that “[a] 3 level increase is applicable inasmuch as [she] was a manager or supervisor and the criminal activity involved five or more participants and was extensive[.]” However, the plea agreement also provides that Champion is “free to argue that a 2 level increase is applicable.” The PIR recommended applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because Champion “was a leader or organizer of the criminal activity which involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” In her sentencing position and at the sentencing hearing, Champion’s counsel objected to this calculation, arguing that only a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) is appropriate. The district court overruled the objection and applied the four-level enhancement, calling Champion “the leader of the pack.” -5- Even if Champion could establish that her counsel demonstrated deficient performance, she has not shown prejudice.2 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting that a court need not engage in the analysis of both prongs of the ineffective-assistance inquiry when “the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one”). In her testimony at the plea hearing, Champion stated facts sufficient to support the district court’s finding that she was a leader of the conspiracy. Champion described how (1) the illegal scheme worked, (2) a co-conspirator would steal checks from the mail and give them to her, (3) she distributed the counterfeit checks to other co-conspirators to be cashed, and (4) she typically received one third of the proceeds, despite the presence of many other individuals. Champion also said that the conspiracy had (1) at least five participants, (2) a total financial loss that exceeded $400,000, and (3) more than fifty victims. Thus Champion’s testimony shows that she was at the center of an extensive conspiracy, and, accordingly, the record contains independent support– notwithstanding counsel’s failure to object to the PIR– for the district court’s finding that she was a leader of the conspiracy under § 3B1.1(a). Because Champion cannot show prejudice, the district court did not err by denying her petition.3 2 The government argues that Champion’s counsel objected to the district court’s calculation and, therefore, Champion cannot succeed on Strickland’s first prong. We need not resolve this issue, but we note that Champion’s counsel argued only that the two-level enhancement should not apply. In other words, Champion’s counsel did not dispute the fact that Champion played a leadership role in the offense. 3 Champion also contends that the district court improperly denied her an evidentiary hearing. But no such hearing is required when “the allegations . . . are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible or conclusions rather than statements of fact.” Delgado v. United States, 162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Champion’s allegations are contradicted by the record and involve conclusions rather than statements of fact, no such hearing was required. -6-