Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a defendant who successfully challenged the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, emphasizing the failure of the defendant's attorney to contest the presentencing report's unsupported $10 million loss figure, which significantly enhanced the defendant's sentence under USSG § 2B3.1. Furthermore, the attorney neglected to argue for a 'clear and convincing' standard for determining factual bases for sentencing enhancements, despite prior rulings requiring this standard when enhancements significantly impact the sentence. Compounding these errors, the defendant received enhancements for a robbery for which he was not charged or convicted. The court vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing, underscoring the ineffectiveness of counsel in this case. The appellate decision remains unpublished and non-citable, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Enhancements for Uncharged Conductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that enhancements were applied for a robbery for which Ly was neither convicted nor charged, further indicating counsel's ineffectiveness.
Reasoning: Moreover, Ly received enhancements related to a robbery for which he was neither convicted nor charged, further supporting the argument that counsel should have contested the factual basis for these enhancements.
Ineffective Assistance of Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that Ly's counsel failed to effectively challenge erroneous sentencing factors, constituting ineffective assistance.
Reasoning: The appellate court reverses the district court's decision and grants Ly's petition, citing several critical errors by his counsel.
Sentencing Enhancements under USSG § 2B3.1subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Ly's attorney did not contest the use of an unsupported $10 million loss figure, which improperly enhanced his sentence.
Reasoning: Firstly, Ly's attorney failed to challenge the sentencing judge’s acceptance of an unsupported loss figure of $10 million from the presentencing report, which was improperly used to enhance Ly’s sentence under USSG § 2B3.1.
Standard of Proof for Sentencing Enhancementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The counsel's failure to argue for a 'clear and convincing' standard in sentencing enhancements was a critical error.
Reasoning: Ly’s counsel did not advocate for a 'clear and convincing' standard when determining the factual basis for Ly's sentencing enhancements.
Unpublished Opinions and Citationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is non-precedential and cannot be cited in future cases except under specific rules.
Reasoning: This disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.