Opinion ID: 2778728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presentence Interview Advice

Text: With respect to the advice during the presentence interview, we agree that trial counsel’s advice represented reasonable strategy given the overall strategy of seeking a lower sentence based upon (from his standpoint) Israel’s lesser role in the conspiracy. “[S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable . . . .” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. The strategy attributed to Israel’s trial counsel is plausible: by not discussing offense conduct and thus preserving Israel’s objections to total drug quantity, trial counsel was working for an even greater reduction in offense level than Israel would have received under § 3E1.1. As the district court stated, Israel cannot now disclaim his attorney’s decisions just because he does not like the results or believes that 7 Case: 13-50348 Document: 00512933528 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 No. 13-50348 his counsel made some mistakes. See Druery v. Thaler, 647 F.3d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 2011) (“That [counsel] may have been mistaken in part of his legal reasoning does not constitute ineffectiveness where the ultimate strategic choice was reasonable.” (emphasis added)). We conclude that the district court did not err in denying relief on this ground. 4