Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Vargas
Citation: 39 F. App'x 612Docket: No. 01-3049
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; May 1, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Michael Vargas appeals the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He argues that his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare him to testify and neglected to obtain a surveillance videotape from a McDonald’s where he allegedly assaulted a federal witness. The court found that Vargas had knowingly waived his right to testify during his direct appeal, thus negating his first claim. Even if his counsel's performance had been inadequate, Vargas could not demonstrate that his testimony would have likely altered the trial's outcome, as the evidence against him was overwhelming. Regarding the videotape, the court deemed Vargas's claim frivolous, noting a lack of evidence to contradict the district court's finding that reasonable efforts were made to locate it and failing to show how it would have impacted the trial's outcome. Vargas also contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a double jeopardy defense against his convictions under both federal and D.C. Code provisions. The court referenced its previous ruling in United States v. McLaughlin, which established that the statutes require proof of different facts, thus supporting the decision not to pursue the double jeopardy argument. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, and the order states that the mandate will not be issued until seven days after any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is resolved.