Fernando Arias-Gonzales v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Fernando Arias-Gonzales v. United States

486 F. App'x 617

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 4, 2012

Docket12-1054

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 486 F. App'x 617 (Fernando Arias-Gonzales v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fernando Arias-Gonzales v. United States, 486 F. App'x 617 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a jury found Fernando Arias-Gonzales (Arias) guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, he was sentenced to 300 months in prison. This court affirmed. See United States v. Arias-Gonzales, 356 Fed.Appx. 895 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 3342, 176 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2010). Arias then filed this motion for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief, which the district court 1 denied following an evidentiary hearing. Arias appeals.

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Arias did not establish that his trial counsel was ineffective. Arias, who did not plead guilty and was subject to deportation apart from the criminal proceedings, did not establish prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to discuss deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction. Nor did he show prejudice from counsel’s purported failure to understand or explain the Sentencing Guidelines. See Blankenship v. United States, 159 F.3d 336, 338 (8th Cir.1998) (when considering whether defense suffered prejudice, court must determine whether reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, result of proceeding would have been different); cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether his plea carries risk of deportation). We also agree that Arias cannot relitigate a standard-of-proof argument rejected on direct appeal, see Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir.2011). The relevant drug statutes are not void for vagueness, or otherwise invalid. We decline to expand the scope of the certificate of appeal-ability to include Arias’s new pro se arguments. See Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1040 (8th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After a jury found Fernando Arias-Gonzales (Arias) guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, he was sentenced to 300 months in prison. This court affirmed. See United States v. Arias-Gonzales, 356 Fed.Appx. 895 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 3342, 176 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2010). Arias then filed this motion for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief, which the district court 1 denied following an evidentiary hearing. Arias appeals.

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Arias did not establish that his trial counsel was ineffective. Arias, who did not plead guilty and was subject to deportation apart from the criminal proceedings, did not establish prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to discuss deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction. Nor did he show prejudice from counsel’s purported failure to understand or explain the Sentencing Guidelines. See Blankenship v. United States, 159 F.3d 336, 338 (8th Cir.1998) (when considering whether defense suffered prejudice, court must determine whether reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, result of proceeding would have been different); cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether his plea carries risk of deportation). We also agree that Arias cannot relitigate a standard-of-proof argument rejected on direct appeal, see Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir.2011). The relevant drug statutes are not void for vagueness, or otherwise invalid. We decline to expand the scope of the certificate of appeal-ability to include Arias’s new pro se arguments. See Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1040 (8th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 F. App'x 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernando-arias-gonzales-v-united-states-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack