Court Opinion

ID: 9556384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 00:00:31.159611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.176892
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10478      Document: 00516860553         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                  FILED
                                                                          August 16, 2023
                                   No. 20-10478                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                  Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Brenton Thomas Massey,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:18-CV-1973
                   ______________________________

   Before Jones, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge:
          Prisoner Brenton Massey brings ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
   claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He was convicted for conspiracy to possess
   with intent to distribute methamphetamine in the Eastern District of Texas
   and for being a felon in possession of a firearm in the Northern District of
   Texas. His claims rest on the argument that his sentence for the latter offense
   should have been adjusted to reflect the 13 months he had already spent in
   prison for his first conviction.
Case: 20-10478        Document: 00516860553              Page: 2       Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                         No. 20-10478

           Massey brought this 2255 petition in the Northern District of Texas,
   faulting his trial counsel for failing to adequately advocate for “back time” at
   sentencing and faulting his appellate counsel for not raising the issue on
   appeal. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied. The
   district judge (the same judge who sentenced Massey in the Northern
   District) adopted the recommendation, dismissed the claims, and denied a
   certificate of appealability. This court granted a certificate of appealability,
   and we now AFFIRM.
           It is true that the Sentencing Guidelines call for credit for time served
   if there are two related offenses. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). Both parties agree the
   offenses are related here. Yet the Guidelines are not obligatory, and the judge
   in the Northern District of Texas instead sentenced Massey under U.S.S.G.
   § 5G1.3(d). Thus, Massey’s sentences were treated as concurrent from the
   day of the second sentencing but did not account for the 13 months of back
   time.
           None of this means that Massey’s lawyers were constitutionally
   deficient. Massey’s trial counsel argued for the application of U.S.S.G.
   § 5G1.3(b) in a memorandum and noted the argument in open court; he was
   not constitutionally obliged to do more. Massey’s appellate counsel was not
   deficient for failing to raise the issue because the district court did not
   contravene any binding case law. Further, even if one or both attorneys were
   deficient, the district court’s subsequent actions make it clear that the
   defendant was not prejudiced. 1

           _____________________
           1
             “When evaluating the denial of a § 2255 motion, the court of appeals reviews
   factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.” United States v. Phea,
   953 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726, 728–29 (5th
   Cir. 2015)). “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and

                                                2
Case: 20-10478         Document: 00516860553               Page: 3      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                          No. 20-10478

                                                I.
           To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a prisoner must make
   two showings.        First, he “must show that counsel’s performance was
   deficient.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052,
   2064 (1984). “This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious
   that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant
   by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. Second, he “must show that the deficient
   performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. “This requires showing that
   counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a
   trial whose result is reliable.” Id. “Surmounting Strickland’s high bar is
   never an easy task.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105, 131 S. Ct. 770,
   788 (2011) (quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 371, 130 S. Ct. at 1485).
           In this case, the trial lawyer adequately presented in his briefing and
   thereby preserved the argument that his client should be sentenced according
   to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). While the argument was imperfect—counsel also
   sought credit for time Massey spent in custody for a related state charge as
   well, which Massey was already entitled to under 18 U.S.C. § 3585—it was
   not constitutionally deficient. The argument put the district court on notice
   of the back-time request and directed it to the applicable Guideline. Neither
   the failure of this argument to persuade the district court nor the absence of
   any further objection to the court’s decision suggests that the attorney’s
   conduct was constitutionally deficient. Even “an unsuccessful defense”
   must enjoy “a strong presumption” of reasonableness. Nix v. Whiteside,
   475 U.S. 157, 165, 106 S. Ct. 988, 993 (1986). Further, counsel need not

           _____________________
   fact that this court reviews de novo.” Id. (citing United States v. Rivas-Lopez, 678 F.3d 353,
   356 (5th Cir. 2012)).

                                                 3
Case: 20-10478         Document: 00516860553              Page: 4       Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                          No. 20-10478

   reassert sentencing arguments in order to preserve them for appellate review.
   See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020).
           Trial counsel’s adequate presentation and preservation of the
   § 5G1.3(b) issue sets this case apart from those where courts have found
   ineffective assistance of counsel. In United States v. Smith, the defense never
   raised any argument about how to apply the Guidelines. 454 F. App’x 260
   (5th Cir. 2011). Neither party objected to the Guideline range calculated by
   the probation office, and the defense failed to object when the district court
   inadvertently departed from that range. Id. at 261. Similarly, the basis for
   finding deficient performance of counsel in United States v. Carlsen was the
   “attorney’s failure to advocate for the application of” § 5G1.3(b).
   441 F. App’x 531, 535 (9th Cir. 2011). District court cases have followed a
   similar trendline. 2
           In fact, in every case we are aware of where counsel cited § 5G1.3(b),
   his or her conduct has been found constitutionally adequate. See, e.g., United
   States v. Hoang, 2016 WL 1392549, at *23 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016) (rejecting
   an argument of deficient performance where “the transcript of the
   Sentencing Hearing shows that U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) was [] addressed”);
   Kriegbaum v. United States, 2017 WL 4222439, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 30,
   2017). These analogous cases help guide our decision.
           Thus, counsel was not constitutionally obliged to re-urge his argument
   after the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d).                    The issue was

           _____________________
           2
             See Cobb v. United States, 2019 WL 2607002, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019) (an
   error regarding § 5G1.3(b) was “not raised at sentencing”); Schmitt v. United States,
   2018 WL 10669774, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2018) (the “lawyer did not argue for” the
   credit available under the Guidelines). Likewise, defense counsel appears to have made no
   argument regarding the proper application of § 5G1.3(b) during the trial at issue in Jones v.
   United States, No. 2:19-CV-291, 2019 WL 4060390, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2019).

                                                4
Case: 20-10478      Document: 00516860553          Page: 5   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   preserved. Moreover, even if we believed that the district court simply mixed
   up the two provisions, trial counsel evidently did not agree. Applying the
   “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of
   reasonable professional assistance,” this was a reasonable belief, as explained
   below. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. We decline to turn
   Strickland’s “highly deferential” standard on its head by assuming that
   counsel erred based on a debatable interpretation of the sentencing
   transcript. Id. To find deficient performance under such circumstances
   would unreasonably second-guess counsel’s conduct without any legal basis.
                                         II.
          Massey’s theory of prejudice rests on the assumption that the district
   court meant to sentence Massey under § 5G1.3(b), but it mistakenly
   sentenced him under § 5G1.3(d), despite having received a written
   memorandum from counsel that cited subsection (b). Consequently, he
   believes that the district court would have corrected itself if counsel had
   objected. We disagree.
          The district judge who sentenced Massey also ruled on this § 2255
   motion. He adopted the magistrate judge’s report, which stated that the
   district court “appropriately weighed all of [the] options under U.S.S.G.
   § 5G1.3, including the application of subsection (b) and the related
   adjustment for time served, and decided to rely instead on subsection (d) to
   achieve a reasonable punishment.” In other words, the district judge had the
   chance to correct any previous confusion and resentence Massey according
   to subsection (b). He instead adopted that report, which stated that he
   “weighed all of [the] options under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3” and chose to sentence
   Massey under subsection (d).
          This conclusion is bolstered by the legitimate reasons to apply
   § 5G1.3(d). First, a full application of subsection (b) would have led to a

                                         5
Case: 20-10478      Document: 00516860553          Page: 6   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   sentence below the mandatory minimum of fifteen years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
   Second, as the magistrate judge noted, Massey’s case involved time-credit
   calculations that were difficult to predict. In such cases, the commentary for
   § 5G1.3 suggests using subsection (d). U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n.4(D).
          All of this reinforces the strong presumption that the district judge
   consciously exercised his sentencing discretion. Massey has not overcome
   that presumption. He relies on the district court’s statement that the
   sentence would be “fully concurrent” to support his argument that he was
   prejudiced. But “fully concurrent” does not necessarily mean “according to
   § 5G1.3(b).” Subsection (d) permitted the sentences to be fully concurrent
   going forward. If “fully concurrent” meant “giving full back time credit,”
   then the district court legally could not have imposed a “fully concurrent”
   sentence—giving back time would have led to a 175-month sentence, five
   months below the mandatory minimum. In the face of this legal obstacle and
   the district judge’s own later rulings, we decline to take the phrase “fully
   concurrent” to mean that the judge confused subsections (b) and (d). Cf.
   Potter v. United States, 887 F.3d 785, 788 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he judge who
   reviewed [the defendant’s] § 2255 motion is the same judge who sentenced
   him. It is difficult to think of a better source of information about what
   happened the first time around.”); Dimott v. United States, 881 F.3d 232, 237
   (1st Cir. 2018) (“Although these findings were made during the collateral
   review process, and not expressly stated at the time of sentencing, we give
   them due weight because the habeas judge was describing his own decisions
   at sentencing.”); United States v. Brito, 601 F. App’x 267, 273 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (“Since the same judge presided over sentencing and the § 2255 proceeding,
   she is in the best position to know what she meant by” an ambiguous
   statement during sentencing).

                                         6
Case: 20-10478      Document: 00516860553           Page: 7     Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                     No. 20-10478

                                          III.
          Appellate counsel was not constitutionally ineffective, either. To
   succeed, Massey would need to establish that the district court did not
   exercise its legitimate sentencing discretion and that, if he appealed that
   issue, the result would more than likely have been different. He attempts to
   do so by faulting counsel for failing to argue that the district court should have
   articulated reasons during sentencing as to why it applied § 5G1.3(d) instead
   of § 5G1.3(b).
          “Effective appellate counsel should not raise every nonfrivolous
   argument on appeal, but rather only those arguments most likely to
   succeed.” Davila v. Davis, 582 U.S. 521, 533, 137 S. Ct. 2058, 2067 (2017).
   Appellate counsel is responsible for making “solid, meritorious arguments
   based on directly controlling precedent.” United States v. Conley, 349 F.3d 837,
   841 (5th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added).            Importantly, “[s]uch directly
   controlling precedent is rare. Often, factual differences will make authority
   easily distinguishable, whether persuasively or not. In such cases, it is not
   necessarily providing ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to construct an
   argument that may or may not succeed.” United States v. Williamson,
   183 F.3d 458, 463 n.7 (5th Cir. 1999).
          The was no such “directly controlling” precedent. In 2003, this court
   held in United States v. Rangel that (1) “subsection (b) is mandatory,”
   (2) nevertheless, “the district court retains its discretion to impose a
   sentence consecutively” through a departure, and (3) if it sentences
   consecutively, the court “must offer reasons justifying the departure.”
   319 F.3d 710, 715 (5th Cir. 2003). But that framework no longer applies to
   § 5G1.3(b) cases because the Supreme Court later ruled that the Guidelines
   are advisory rather than mandatory. Booker, 543 U.S. at 245, 125 S. Ct. at
   756. Thus, Rangel is not directly controlling for the purposes of finding

                                            7
Case: 20-10478        Document: 00516860553              Page: 8      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                         No. 20-10478

   deficient performance. Cf. United States v. Lagos, 25 F.4th 329, 337 (5th Cir.
   2022) (finding no deficient performance where a previously binding
   precedent was “superseded by changes to the Guidelines”).
           In the aftermath of that decision, this court stated in an unpublished
   opinion that “sentencing judges must include [§ 5G1.3(b)] in the calculation
   of the proper guideline sentence.” United States v. Figueroa, 215 F. App’x
   343, 344 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Estrada, 312 F. App’x 664,
   667 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Even though it was not mandatory for the district court
   to comply with § 5G1.3(b), the court was still required to consider that
   subsection as part of its determination of a reasonable sentence.”); United
   States v. Young, 2021 WL 4515393, at *7 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021) (vacating and
   remanding because the district court failed to consider § 5G1.3(b)).
           But unpublished opinions “are not precedent.” 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
   Perhaps in some instances, counsel might fall below the constitutional
   standard of effective advocacy even absent controlling precedent, if the point
   of law were sufficiently obvious. Cf. United States v. Franks, 230 F.3d 811,
   814 (5th Cir. 2000). But the standard requirement is to raise “arguments
   based on directly controlling precedent.” Conley, 349 F.3d at 841. Where
   only persuasive authority is cited, this court has generally declined to find
   that counsel had to raise the argument. See, e.g., United States v. Slape,
   44 F.4th 356, 360 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2022); Schaetzle v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 440,
   446 (5th Cir. 2003). 3

           _____________________
           3
             For the reasons outlined above, Massey’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
   cannot succeed. We therefore also conclude that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing to Massey. See United States v. Cervantes,
   132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998) (denial of an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for abuse
   of discretion).

                                               8
Case: 20-10478   Document: 00516860553       Page: 9   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                              No. 20-10478

                                 IV.
         For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                   9
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 10   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   Dana M. Douglas, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
          Nearly four decades ago, Strickland v. Washington recognized a
   narrow path to habeas relief: ineffective assistance of counsel. 466 U.S. 668
   (1984). On this record, I would find that Massey should have been entitled
   to habeas relief under Strickland and its progeny. Accordingly, I respectfully
   dissent.
                                  I. Background
          To understand why, we must start at the beginning. On April 5, 2013,
   Massey was arrested as part of a law enforcement investigation into
   methamphetamine trafficking in the Dallas metro area. He was initially
   charged with the Texas state offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a
   felon and held in state custody. The state charge was later dismissed. Massey
   was also indicted in two federal districts—the Eastern District of Texas and
   the Northern District of Texas—on federal charges arising from the same
   underlying conduct. He was first indicted in the Northern District in August
   2013 for the offense of felon in possession of a firearm. He was then indicted
   in the Eastern District in September 2013 for the offense of conspiracy to
   possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.              Massey was
   represented by the same trial counsel in both federal proceedings. This
   appeal involves Massey’s Northern District sentence.
          The Eastern District case was resolved first. Massey pleaded guilty to
   the drug charge and, on February 11, 2015, was sentenced to 168 months
   imprisonment. Massey was then transferred to the Northern District, where
   he pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession charge in August 2015. Massey’s
   Presentence Report (“PSR”) identified the Eastern District drug offense as
   “relevant conduct” to the Northern District firearm offense, as Massey was
   carrying the firearm in connection with the drug offense. Based on his prior
   convictions, the PSR recommended that Massey be sentenced as an armed

                                        10
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 11    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   career criminal—subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum term of
   imprisonment—pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and United States
   Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 4B1.4(a). Massey objected that the
   Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) enhancement should not apply to
   him based on the nature of his prior convictions. The district court overruled
   the objection, leaving Massey’s guidelines range at 188 to 235 months of
   imprisonment.
          Massey submitted a sentencing memorandum to the court asking for
   a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range; that the sentence “run
   concurrent with his conviction for 168 months out of the Eastern District of
   Texas for Drug Conspiracy as these offenses are related”; and that he “be
   given back time credit for the instant offense back to the time of his arrest on
   April 5, 2013.” In the memorandum, he cited U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) as
   “giv[ing] this Court authority to adjust a sentence it would otherwise impose
   to reflect time a defendant spent in state custody prior to federal sentencing
   ‘if the court determines that such period of imprisonment will not be credited
   to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons’” and asked for “back time
   credit for three years,” referring to the period between his April 2013 arrest
   and the pending April 2016 sentencing. Massey’s PSR did not reference
   § 5G1.3(b), back time credit, or running the Eastern and Northern District
   sentences concurrently.
          At sentencing, Massey’s trial counsel did not explicitly reference
   § 5G1.3(b), but did twice reiterate his request for concurrent sentences with
   “back time” credit:
          We’re also asking, because this is part of that case out of the
          Eastern District, that these cases be run concurrent. I’m also
          asking the court to ensure that the Bureau of Prisons gives him
          credit for back time going back to April 5th of 2013, when he

                                          11
Case: 20-10478    Document: 00516860553           Page: 12   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                   No. 20-10478

          was arrested for this offense. That’s basically three years
          worth of back time.
          ...
          What we’re asking of the court, and I think the government is
          not opposing, is a low end guideline sentence, Your Honor,
          that will run concurrent with his sentence out of the Eastern
          District of Texas, and that he be given credit for back time
          going back to April 5th, 2013.
   The district court sentenced Massey to a term of imprisonment of 188
   months, the bottom of the guidelines range, stating that the sentence was
   “sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes for
   sentencing” and that “there are no factors under Section 3553(a), alone or in
   combination, that require a sentence that is greater than the minimum
   advisory guideline range sentence.” The court also stated:
         I am going to be ordering the sentence to be served
         concurrently with the Eastern District sentence when I
         pronounce the sentence. The way that I will address the
         request for back time, is that I will be imposing the concurrent
         sentence pursuant to guideline 5G1.3D, which will indicate to
         the Bureau of Prisons that the sentence is fully concurrent.
         That’s the way the court will do that.
          ...
          It is ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently with the
          sentence imposed in Case Number 4:13-CR-00102-7 by the
          United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
          Plano Division pursuant to United States Sentencing
          Guideline 5G1.3D.
   On the Judgment in a Criminal Case, the court included a note: “It is ordered
   that the sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed” in the
   Eastern District case “pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d).” In the “statement
   of reasons” attached to the Judgment, the district court checked a box

                                        12
Case: 20-10478      Document: 00516860553            Page: 13    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                      No. 20-10478

   indicating that it had given Massey a sentence within the guidelines range and
   had not departed or varied.
          Despite the district court’s statement at sentencing that the Northern
   District sentence was to be “fully concurrent” with the Eastern District
   sentence, in fact the sentences were only partially concurrent. Due to the
   method by which the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculates terms of
   imprisonment, Massey did not receive credit toward the Northern District
   sentence for the 13 months that he had already spent in federal prison serving
   the Eastern District sentence. Thus, even though Massey’s Eastern District
   sentence was 168 months, and his Northern District sentence was 188
   months, he was actually sentenced to an aggregate term of 201 months—13
   months longer than if the sentences were “fully concurrent.”
          On direct appeal, Massey raised a single argument, claiming that he
   was ineligible for the ACCA enhancement because his prior Texas conviction
   for attempted taking of a weapon from a peace officer was not a qualifying
   “violent felony.”     This court rejected his argument and affirmed his
   conviction and sentence. United States v. Massey, 858 F.3d 380 (5th Cir.
   2017). Massey claims that he also alerted his appellate counsel to the § 5G1.3
   issue. In any event, Massey did not challenge the district court’s application
   of § 5G1.3 in his direct appeal.
          Thereafter, Massey filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
   seeking to vacate his sentence. In his motion, Massey asserted that (1) his
   trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object when the trial
   court did not sentence him pursuant to § 5G1.3(b), with an adjustment for
   time served; (2) the district court abused its discretion by instead sentencing
   him pursuant to § 5G1.3(d); and (3) his appellate counsel was constitutionally
   ineffective for failing to raise this sentencing issue on appeal.

                                           13
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 14    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

          The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended
   that the district court deny the motion. The magistrate judge correctly
   observed that Massey’s claim that the district court misapplied the
   Sentencing Guidelines was not cognizable on habeas review. See United
   States v. Williamson, 183 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 1999). As to Massey’s claim
   of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the magistrate judge recommended
   that the motion be denied because, even assuming that trial counsel was
   deficient, Massey had not shown that he was prejudiced. The magistrate
   judge then concluded that appellate counsel had not been deficient. Finally,
   having determined that Massey’s claims lacked merit, the magistrate judge
   recommended that the district court deny Massey’s request for an
   evidentiary hearing. Overruling Massey’s objections, the district court
   adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, denied Massey’s § 2255
   motion, and denied a certificate of appealability (“COA”).
          Massey then sought a COA in this court, which granted a COA on two
   issues: “(1) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in regard to
   the calculation and imposition of Massey’s sentence, including the
   application of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3; and (2) whether appellate counsel rendered
   ineffective assistance by failing to raise this sentencing issue on appeal.” The
   court also clarified that a COA is not required to appeal the denial of an
   evidentiary hearing. Additionally, the court appointed Massey pro bono
   counsel.
                                   II. Discussion
          “To establish ineffective assistance, [a defendant] must show that his
   attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
   and that there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceedings
   would have been different without the attorney’s errors.” United States v.

                                         14
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 15    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   Franks, 230 F.3d 811, 813 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Strickland v. Washington,
   466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)). In my view, Massey meets both requirements.
                            A. Deficient Performance
          To begin with, Massey’s trial counsel’s representation was deficient.
   “The proper       measure of      attorney performance remains           simply
   reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S.
   at 688. “We assess reasonableness ‘from counsel’s perspective at the time
   of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances.’” United States v.
   Scott, 11 F.4th 364, 369 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 827 (2022)
   (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986)). “[A] reasonable
   attorney has an obligation to research relevant facts and law, or make an
   informed decision that certain avenues will not prove fruitful.” Williamson,
   183 F.3d at 462. Counsel’s failure to object to a district court’s erroneous
   application of the Sentencing Guidelines can constitute deficient
   performance. See Franks, 230 F.3d at 814; United States v. Smith, 454 F.
   App’x 260, 261–62 (5th Cir. 2011); see United States v. Grammas, 376 F.3d
   433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004) (counsel’s “lack of familiarity with the Guidelines”
   fell below Strickland’s objective reasonableness standard).
          While our court has yet to consider the precise circumstances
   presented by this case, federal district courts in and out of this circuit have
   considered    similar   ineffective-assistance-of-counsel     claims   involving
   § 5G1.3(b). For example, in Cobb v. United States, the defendant was
   sentenced in two different federal districts for related criminal conduct, but
   the second sentencing court did not adjust his sentence to account for time
   already served on the first sentence. No. 1:09-CV-916, 2019 WL 2607002, at
   *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019). On collateral review, the court ruled that
   counsel’s failure to object when the district court did not adjust the
   defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 5G1.3(b) “demonstrate[d] a lack of

                                         15
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553            Page: 16    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                     No. 20-10478

   familiarity with the Guidelines sufficient to meet the first prong of
   Strickland,” notwithstanding that counsel “was a zealous and otherwise
   effective advocate.” Id. at *3; see also Jones v. United States, No. 2:19-CV-
   291, 2019 WL 4060390, at *1–3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2019) (finding deficient
   performance and prejudice when district court erroneously calculated the
   sentence adjustment for time served on a related state sentence under
   § 5G1.3(b) and counsel did not object, resulting in eight additional months of
   imprisonment); Schmitt v. United States, No. 3:15-CV-5, 2018 WL 10669774,
   at *2–3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2018) (finding deficient performance when
   counsel did not argue for credit for time served on related state sentence
   pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.23, which is analogous to § 5G1.3(b) but applies
   when the state sentence is already discharged); Kriegbaum v. United States,
   No. 3:17-CV-252, 2017 WL 4222439, at *5–7 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2017)
   (finding no ineffective assistance where counsel “vigorously argued” for
   application of § 5G1.3(b)); Hoang v. United States, No. 4:15-CV-2451, 2016
   WL 1392549, at *9–10, 16, 23 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016) (finding no ineffective
   assistance where counsel’s § 5G1.3(b) argument showed “familiarity with
   the sentencing guidelines”).
          The Ninth Circuit also considered this issue in United States v. Carlsen
   and held that counsel performed deficiently by not making a § 5G1.3(b)
   argument when the defendant was serving an undischarged state sentence for
   a related offense at the time of his federal sentencing. 441 F. App’x 531, 534–
   35 (9th Cir. 2011).     Unlike the present case, however, in Carlsen the
   government conceded that counsel had been ineffective by failing to raise the
   argument. Id. at 535. Here, the government asserts that Massey’s counsel
   did make a § 5G1.3(b) argument and therefore was not deficient. I agree that
   counsel initially raised the issue, but this is not the end of the matter.
          It is true that Massey’s counsel cited § 5G1.3(b) in a sentencing
   memorandum to the court and argued for “back time credit for the instant

                                           16
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 17    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   offense back to the time of his arrest on April 5, 2013.” The sentencing
   memorandum, however, referred to the district court’s “authority to adjust
   a sentence it would otherwise impose to reflect time a defendant spent in state
   custody prior to federal sentencing” (emphasis added), rather than referring
   to the court’s authority to adjust a sentence to reflect time spent in federal
   custody on a related federal sentence prior to sentencing. Pursuant to 18
   U.S.C. § 3585 and BOP procedures, Massey was already entitled to credit for
   time spent in custody from the date of his state arrest on April 5, 2013, to the
   date of his first federal sentencing (the one imposed in the Eastern District)
   on February 11, 2015. In the instant Northern District sentencing, then, the
   issue was whether and how Massey would receive credit for time spent in
   federal custody from February 11, 2015, to the date of his second federal
   sentencing on April 1, 2016—an overlap of approximately 13 months. At
   sentencing, counsel again referred to credit for back time going back to April
   2013, the date of his state arrest. Counsel’s sentencing memorandum and
   argument at sentencing therefore misstated the key issue by not specifying
   the need for credit for the period served between his first and second federal
   sentencings. Relatedly, counsel did not make a request for an adjustment of
   a specific amount of time to account for time served on the Eastern District
   sentence, but instead made a general request for credit for back time going
   back to April 2013.
          To make matters worse, counsel also failed to object when the district
   court sentenced Massey pursuant to § 5G1.3(d), without calculating any
   sentence adjustment for the time already served on the Eastern District
   sentence that would not be credited by BOP, and without mentioning the
   applicable guideline, § 5G1.3(b), at all, nor giving reasons for deviating from
   it. Considering the circumstances, this specific omission—the failure to
   object—was deficient and fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

                                          17
Case: 20-10478        Document: 00516860553              Page: 18       Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                         No. 20-10478

           Our caselaw holds that it is error for a sentencing court to not consider
   § 5G1.3(b) when calculating the guideline sentence if the section is
   applicable, as it was here. See United States v. Rangel, 319 F.3d 710, 714–15
   (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Figueroa, 215 F. App’x 343, 344 & n.1 (5th
   Cir. 2007) (citing Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); see also United States v.
   Estrada, 312 F. App’x 664, 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Even though it was not
   mandatory for the district court to comply with § 5G1.3(b), the court was still
   required to consider that subsection as part of its determination of a
   reasonable sentence.”); United States v. Young, No. 20-30492, 2021 WL
   4515393, at *7 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021); cf. Franks, 230 F.3d at 814 (holding that
   failure to object to sentencing enhancement fell below the objective standard
   of reasonableness, even absent controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, because
   three other circuits had held that enhancement was improper on same facts).
   In such a case, if the sentencing court deviates from § 5G1.3(b), it must give
   reasons. See Rangel, 319 F.3d at 715; see also Estrada, 312 F. App’x at 667–68.
   Here, the district court did not indicate that it was deviating from the
   guidelines, nor give reasons, but instead stated its intention that Massey
   receive a “fully concurrent” sentence, which is what § 5G1.3(b) prescribes. 1
   But the district court then cited § 5G1.3(d), not (b), and did not make the
   adjustment necessary to render the sentence “fully concurrent.” Further,
   the court stated that its reference to § 5G1.3(d) would “indicate to the
   Bureau of Prisons that the sentence is fully concurrent,” when in fact the
   BOP lacked the statutory authority to affect a fully concurrent sentence and

           _____________________
           1
              As discussed further in the next section concerning prejudice, the district court
   indicated that it was following the guidelines. Immediately prior to mentioning § 5G1.3,
   the district court stated that a 188-month sentence, the bottom of the guidelines range, was
   sufficient but not greater than necessary, and in its “statement of reasons,” the court
   checked the box indicating that it had given Massey a sentence within the guidelines range
   and had not departed or varied

                                               18
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 19   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   the district court lacked the authority to order it to do so. See 18 U.S.C.
   § 3585(b); United States v. Hankton, 875 F.3d 786, 792 (5th Cir. 2017); In re
   United States Bureau of Prisons, Dep’t of Just., 918 F.3d 431, 439 (5th Cir.
   2019). Given all the above circumstances, Massey’s counsel should have
   objected at that point.
          Though neither party briefed the issue before our court, the fact that
   Massey was subject to a 180-month statutory minimum sentence does not
   change the foregoing analysis. First, even with the statutory minimum,
   § 5G1.3(b) was still the applicable guideline and the district court still had
   room to effectuate a § 5G1.3(b) adjustment of eight months. See Smith, 950
   F.3d at 288–89; Hankton, 875 F.3d at 793–94. Second, the presence of the
   statutory minimum does not change that the district court’s stated intent was
   to follow the guidelines and give Massey a “fully concurrent” sentence, even
   if, as explained above, the statutory minimum would have in fact prevented
   the district court from doing so by limiting the § 5G1.3(b) adjustment to eight
   months instead of 13 months.
          Our court has found ineffective assistance on similar facts in the
   context of other guidelines. For example, in United States v. Smith, the
   district court gave no indication or notice of an intent to depart upward from
   the guidelines, but then mistakenly sentenced the defendant to 12 years when
   the guideline sentence was seven years. 454 F. App’x at 261. We held that
   counsel’s failure to object to the 12-year sentence was constitutionally
   deficient performance given that the clear language of the guidelines
   mandated a sentence of seven years. Id. Similarly, here the district court did
   not indicate that it was going to vary from the guidelines or depart upward,
   but then sentenced Massey to more time than he would have served under
   the guidelines. Counsel should have objected.

                                         19
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553            Page: 20   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                     No. 20-10478

          Jones v. United States, a Florida federal district court case involving
   § 5G1.3, provides another useful comparison. In Jones, the defendant was
   already serving a 72-month state sentence for related conduct at the time of
   his federal sentencing. The district court, seeking to run the federal sentence
   “concurrent and coterminous” with the state sentence, determined the
   appropriate sentence based on the guidelines range, subtracted time already
   served on the state sentence, imposed the adjusted federal sentence, and
   noted on the judgment that the sentence adjustment was pursuant to
   §5G1.3(b). 2019 WL 4060390, at *1. In doing so, the district court attempted
   to follow the guidelines. But the district court’s adjustment inadvertently did
   not account for the fact that the BOP would not credit the defendant’s federal
   sentence with the eight months of time served between his first appearance
   in federal court and his sentencing, and counsel did not object to the district
   court’s calculation. Id. at *2. Upon discovering that his federal sentence
   would end eight months after his state sentence, not “concurrent and
   coterminous,” defendant filed a § 2255 motion asserting that counsel was
   ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s miscalculation at
   sentencing. Id. The district court granted the § 2255 motion and explained
   that it was ineffective assistance for counsel to not object when the district
   court imposed a sentence that did not comport with its stated intent of a
   “concurrent and coterminous” guideline sentence. Id. at *3.
          Massey’s case shares material similarities with Jones. In both cases,
   counsel was deficient specifically for failing to object to the district court’s
   imposition of the sentence, rather than for failing to raise the sentencing issue
   altogether. And, in both cases, the basis for counsel’s objection would have
   been that the sentence imposed did not align with the sentencing court’s
   stated intent of a sentence that followed the guidelines: In Jones, the district
   court miscalculated by eight months the § 5G1.3(b) adjustment needed to
   render the federal sentence “concurrent and coterminous” with the state

                                          20
Case: 20-10478      Document: 00516860553             Page: 21     Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                       No. 20-10478

   sentence; here the district court did not make any § 5G1.3(b) adjustment, but
   instead stated that a § 5G1.3(d) sentence would indicate to the BOP that the
   sentences were “fully concurrent,” when in fact the BOP did not have the
   ability to make the sentence “fully concurrent.” Like counsel in Jones,
   Massey’s counsel was deficient for failing to object to the district court’s
   sentence because it is clear from the guidelines and caselaw that a § 5G1.3(d)
   sentence, with no adjustment, would result in a longer sentence than if the
   district court had sentenced Massey under § 5G1.3(b), with an adjustment,
   which would have also been consistent with the guidelines and the district
   court’s stated intent of a “fully concurrent” sentence. 2
          As is apparent from this caselaw, “[c]onfusion sometimes arises . . .
   when a defendant requests that the district court award credit for time
   served” given the complicated interaction between the BOP’s statutory
   authority, its computation manual, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the
   district court’s residual authority to exercise discretion in crafting an
   appropriate sentence. See In re United States Bureau of Prisons, Dep’t of Just.,
   918 F.3d at 439.
          The majority opinion nevertheless attempts to distinguish Massey’s
   case, pointing out that his counsel at least raised the § 5G1.3(b) issue in his
   sentencing briefs. However, we measure attorney competence based on “all
   the circumstances”—not “mechanical rules” or “checklist[s] for judicial
   evaluation.” Strickland, 446 U.S. at 688, 696. Yet the majority opinion
   insists on just that. It says that counsel’s cursory mention of Section 5G1.3(b)

          _____________________
          2
            As discussed above, this is so even though § 924(e)’s statutory minimum would
   have limited the § 5G.3(b) adjustment to eight months and prevented the district court
   from achieving its stated intent of a “fully concurrent” sentence.

                                            21
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 22   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   in his briefing—no matter how “imperfect”—preserved the issue for appeal.
   Maj. Op. at 3-4. And that was enough under Strickland. Maj. Op. at 4-5.
          I do not agree. No client or jurist would expect an attorney’s duty to
   vigorously defend their client to end when an issue is briefed. Nor is there
   any reason to read these cases so narrowly. Take Smith and Carlsen, for
   example. Neither case rested its decision on counsel’s failure to brief the
   issue; Smith doesn’t even mention this failure anywhere in the opinion. And
   it is not hard to see why. At bottom, Strickland teaches that “the ultimate
   focus of inquiry must be on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose
   result is being challenged.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696. The failure to object
   to an error in a proceeding impugns its fairness no matter the briefing.
          In sum, I have little doubt that counsel—who represented Massey in
   both the Eastern District and Northern District proceedings—was “a
   zealous and otherwise effective advocate.” See Cobb, 2019 WL 2607002, at
   *3. Nonetheless, under the circumstances and for all the reasons discussed
   above, I would hold that counsel was deficient for failing to object when the
   district court did not sentence Massey pursuant to subsection (b) with an
   adjustment for time served.
                                   B. Prejudice
          Massey was also prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object. Even
   a day that is spent incarcerated is enough to establish prejudice.         See
   Grammas, 376 F.3d at 437. If Massey received credit for time served under
   Section 5G1.3(b), he would have spent 8 months less in prison.
          The majority opinion responds that the district judge may have
   nevertheless had “legitimate reasons to apply § 5G1.3(d)” instead, since
   Massey’s case was complex. Maj. Op. at 6; see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) cmt.,
   n.3(D).

                                         22
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 23    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

          I   disagree.     At   issue   were      two   convictions:   trafficking
   methamphetamine and being a felon in possession. Those charges are not
   unusual in this circuit. Nor is it “difficult to predict” Massey’s credit for
   time served. Maj. Op. at 6. There is no suggestion that his terms of
   incarceration would “call for the application of different rules.” U.S.S.G. §
   5G1.3(d) cmt., n.3(D). All the district court would need to do is calculate the
   time Massey spent in prison for his drug crime (13 months), subtract that
   figure from the sentence he received for being a felon in possession (188
   months) and, if the resulting total falls below the statutory minimum (180
   months), increase it accordingly. That is hardly a complicated exercise in
   arithmetic.
          This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the district court did not
   mention § 5G1.3(b) at sentencing at all and did not provide reasons to justify
   deviating from the applicable guideline as required and applying § 5G1.3(d)
   instead. Rather, the sentencing transcript suggests that the district court
   intended to follow the guidelines; the court stated that “a sentence at the
   bottom of the advisory guideline range of 188 months is sufficient but not
   greater than necessary to comply with the purposes for sentencing” and that
   “there are no factors under Section 3553(a), alone or in combination, that
   require a sentence that is greater than the minimum advisory guideline range
   sentence.” In the same vein, the “statement of reasons” attached to the
   Judgment suggests that the district court thought it was following the
   guidelines—because the court checked the box indicating that it had given
   Massey a sentence within the guidelines range and had not departed or
   varied—when it had actually deviated from the applicable guideline by
   applying subsection (d) instead of (b). On the whole, the record suggests that

                                         23
Case: 20-10478        Document: 00516860553             Page: 24      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                         No. 20-10478

   the district court’s reliance on subsection (d) instead of (b) may have been
   inadvertent. 3
           Thus, I agree with Massey that there is at least a reasonable probability
   that the court would have applied subsection (b) and he would have received
   a shorter sentence had counsel objected at sentencing. Therefore, Massey
   has also shown prejudice, and is entitled to relief on his claim of ineffective
   assistance of trial counsel.
                    C. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
           I would also find that appellate counsel gave deficient performance.
   “The entitlement to effective assistance does not end when the sentence is
   imposed, but extends to one’s first appeal of right.” Williamson, 183 F.3d at
   462. Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are analyzed using
   the same two-part Strickland test applicable to trial counsel. Id.
           “Appellate counsel is not deficient for not raising every non-frivolous
   issue on appeal,” United States v. Reinhart, 357 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 2004),
   but “[s]olid, meritorious arguments based on directly controlling precedent
   should be discovered and brought to the court’s attention.” Williamson, 183
   F.3d at 463. “Thus, to determine whether [Massey’s] appellate counsel’s
   performance was substandard, we must consider whether [his] challenge . . .
   has sufficient merit such that his counsel was deficient in failing to raise the
   issue on appeal.” Reinhart, 357 F.3d at 525. Under our caselaw, a sentencing
   court’s failure to consider § 5G1.3(b) at sentencing is reversible error. See
   Rangel, 319 F.3d 710, 714–15; Figueroa, 215 F. App’x at 344 & n.1; Estrada,
           _____________________
           3
             Massey also characterizes the district court’s statements at sentencing as being
   “sympathetic” towards him. The record supports his interpretation. At one point, the
   district court gave Massey “words of encouragement.” At another, the court spoke
   favorably about Massey’s chances for rehabilitation. Though these statements are not
   dispositive in determining the district court’s intent, they provide additional context.

                                              24
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 25      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   312 F. App’x at 667; Young, No. 20-30492, 2021 WL 4515393, at *7. By
   failing to raise this clearly meritorious issue, appellate counsel performed
   deficiently. See Williamson, 183 F.3d at 463 (finding deficient performance
   when “cases squarely addressed an issue exactly on point” and appellate
   counsel “fail[ed] to cite directly controlling precedent”).
          It is true that these authorities are unpublished. However, “the
   absence of directly controlling precedent does not preclude a finding of
   deficient performance.” United States v. Phea, 953 F.3d 838, 842 (5th Cir.
   2020) (per curiam); see United States v. Juarez, 672 F.3d 381, 387, 389 (5th
   Cir. 2012) (even where there was “[n]o Fifth Circuit case law” in support,
   counsel’s failure to look up persuasive, non-binding out-of-circuit
   authority—both published and unpublished—was deficient considering
   prevailing professional norms); Franks, 230 F.3d at 814 (counsel’s failure to
   research and argue persuasive, out-of-circuit authority amounted to deficient
   performance).
          The Guidelines also require sentencing courts to consider § 5G1.3(b).
   To be sure, the Guidelines are advisory under United States v. Booker, 543
   U.S. 220, 225-26 (2005). But Booker only excised the “duty to apply the
   guidelines, [not] the duty pursuant to § 3553(a) to ‘consider’ the sentencing
   range established” by the Guidelines. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,
   519 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). That duty is mandatory and set by
   statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4) (stating that sentencing courts “shall
   consider,” among others, “the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range .
   . . set forth in the [sentencing] guidelines.” (emphasis added)).
          That is why, post-Booker, we require “district courts [to] properly
   calculate the applicable guidelines range before imposing a sentence.”
   United States v. Olarte-Rojas, 820 F.3d 798, 805 (5th Cir. 2016). Section
   5G1.3(b) is key to that calculation. To determine the “guideline range as set

                                         25
Case: 20-10478     Document: 00516860553           Page: 26    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 20-10478

   forth in . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4),” the Guidelines point to “Parts B through
   G of Chapter Five”—which includes Section 5G1.3(b).                U.S.S.G. §
   1B1.1(a)(8).
          Further, Massey was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s deficient
   performance. Had Massey’s appellate counsel raised the issue on direct
   appeal, there is a reasonable probability that our court would have vacated
   and remanded for resentencing. See Figueroa, 215 F. App’x at 344 & n.1;
   Young, No. 20-30492, 2021 WL 4515393, at *7. Therefore, in my view,
   Massey has also shown a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of
   appellate counsel that independently warrants relief.
                                  III. Conclusion
          In sum, I believe Massey should have been entitled to habeas relief. I
   thus respectfully dissent.

                                         26