Maurin Chacon v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 23-10403
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-10403 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2025 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10403 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MAURIN CHACON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-21292-KMW ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-10403 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10403

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRANCH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Maurin Chacon appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate of appealability to ad- dress whether the district court erred by analyzing Chacon’s claim that his counsel failed to object to the calculation of certain crimi- nal-history points as a sentencing error instead of an ineffective as- sistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Because we conclude that the district court erred by an- alyzing Chacon’s claim as a freestanding sentencing error, we va- cate and remand for further proceedings. When reviewing the denial of a motion to vacate, we review legal conclusions de novo. Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir. 2014). “When a federal prisoner, sentenced below the statutory maximum, complains of a sentencing error and does not prove either actual innocence of his crime or the vacatur of a prior conviction, the prisoner cannot satisfy the demanding stand- ard that a sentencing error resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice[,]” and cannot obtain relief on collateral review. Spencer v. USCA11 Case: 23-10403 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2025 Page: 3 of 4

23-10403 Opinion of the Court 3

United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1139 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc). But a prisoner raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment must prove that his attorney’s deficient perfor- mance prejudiced his defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. The district court erred in analyzing Chacon’s ineffective as- sistance of counsel claim as a freestanding sentencing error. It re- lied on Spencer and denied Chacon’s claim because his sentence fell below the statutory maximum and at the low end of the guideline range and he did not establish his actual innocence or a vacatur of a prior conviction. See Spencer, 773 F.3d at 1139. But Spencer held a movant’s challenge to the calculation of the guideline range could not be revisited on collateral review absent a miscarriage of justice. Id. at 1138–39. Spencer involved a sentencing error, not a constitu- tional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. By analyzing Cha- con’s claim as a freestanding sentencing error, the district court did not determine whether his claim satisfied the Strickland standard for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We decline to reach the merits of Chacon’s ineffective assis- tance of counsel claim. Our review “is generally limited to the is- sues specified in the [certificate of appealability].” Kuenzel v. Allen, 488 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). We require district courts to develop adequate factual records and make findings as to issues. Long v. United States, 626 F.3d 1167, 1170 (11th Cir. 2010). And if the “district court does not address all the constitutional claims” raised in a motion to vacate, “we will vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all USCA11 Case: 23-10403 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10403

remaining claims.” Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The dis- trict court did not analyze the merits of Chacon’s ineffective assis- tance of sentencing counsel claim under Strickland or develop a rec- ord as to that claim. See Long, 626 F.3d at 1170; Rhode, 583 F.3d at 1291. It must consider the merits of that claim in the first instance. We VACATE the order denying Chacon’s motion to vacate as to his claim of ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.