Dale Eugene Schlichting v. United States , 355 F. App'x 84 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3289
    ___________
    Dale Eugene Schlichting,                *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    United States of America,               *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 20, 2009
    Filed: December 7, 2009
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal prisoner Dale Eugene Schlichting appeals the district court’s1 order
    denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentences for mail fraud and
    engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The district court
    granted a certificate of appealability on Schlichting’s claim that counsel was
    ineffective at sentencing for failing to challenge enhancements under U.S.S.G. §
    2B1.1(b)(1)(I) (loss between $1 million and $2.5 million), § 2B1.1(b)(8)(C) (violation
    1
    The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    of prior administrative order or decree), § 3A1.1(b) (vulnerable victim), and § 3B1.3
    (abuse of position of trust). Schlichting, however, stipulated to these enhancements
    in his plea agreement and at his plea hearing. See United States v. His Law, 
    85 F.3d 379
    , 379 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (defendant is bound by promise made in plea
    agreement). Schlichting does not assert ineffective assistance with respect to the plea
    agreement, and he expressed satisfaction with his plea attorney’s representation at the
    plea hearing. Having carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and the applicable law,
    we conclude that Schlichting cannot show that sentencing counsel acted unreasonably
    in abiding by the plea agreement’s terms or that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure
    to challenge the agreed-upon enhancements. See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687-88 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard); United States v. Davis, 
    406 F.3d 505
    , 508 (8th Cir. 2005) (we review ineffective assistance claims de novo).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-3289

Citation Numbers: 355 F. App'x 84

Judges: Wollman, Riley, Smith

Filed Date: 12/7/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024