Opinion ID: 2830916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: motion for collateral relief

Text: On September 28, 2011, Dye filed this pro se § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. He alleged that prior counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to advise him of the consequences of the cross-reference contained in § 2G1.3(c)(1) prior to sentencing; (2) failing to argue on direct appeal that Amendment 732 to the Guidelines should retroactively apply to him to give him a two-level reduction in his overall offense level; and (3) failing to investigate his mental capacity and request a competency hearing.3 The district court denied Dye’s § 2255 motion without a hearing and declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). United States v. Dye, 2013 WL 24805 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 2, 2013). Dye filed a Notice of Appeal, which we construed as an application for a COA. We entered the following order granting the COA in part as follows: The certificate is granted as to [Dye’s] claim that, but for counsel’s alleged failure to advise him of the applicability of the cross-reference contained in U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1), he would have pled guilty and received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). We deny [Dye’s] request for a certificate of appealability on all other grounds because, essentially for the reasons explained by the District Court, jurists of reason would not debate the District Court’s 3 Amendment 732 notes that § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B)’s undue influence enhancement should not be applied in a case where the only “minor” involved in the offence is an undercover law enforcement officer. See U.S.S.G 2A3.2 cmt. n.3(B). 4 disposition of those claims. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).