United States v. Raleigh Figueras

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-15886
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos.
2:19-cv-01267-MCE-EFB
v. 2:16-cr-00045-MCE-EFB-2
RALEIGH RANA FIGUERAS,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
Appellant Raleigh Figueras appeals from a district court order denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Figueras
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota, sitting by designation.
challenges a sentence imposed after a guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2255, and we affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raises a mixed question
of law and fact, which we review de novo.” United States v. Chacon-Palomares,
208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Figueras must prove (1) “that
counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and (2) that any such deficiency
was “prejudicial to the defense,” id. at 692. We may consider either Strickland
prong, and need not address both if a defendant makes an insufficient showing under
one. Id. at 697; see Schumway v. Washington, 145 F.3d 1340, at *2 (9th Cir. 1998).
Here, we need address only the prejudice prong.
To satisfy the prejudice requirement, Figueras must demonstrate that “there is
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Where, as
here, ineffective assistance is alleged to have led a defendant to accept a plea deal, a
different result means that “but for counsel’s errors, [Figueras] would either have
gone to trial or received a better plea bargain.” United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d
873, 882 (9th Cir. 2004); see Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017).
2
Figueras “must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would
have been rational under the circumstances.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356,
372 (2010).
Figueras, a legal permanent resident of the United States, pled guilty to
possession of stolen U.S. mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708, for which he was
sentenced to 12 months in prison. The conviction and resulting sentence of “at least
one year,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), made him “deportable” pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Figueras contends that, but for his counsel’s ineffective
assistance in not seeking a term of imprisonment of less than one year, he would
have received a shorter prison sentence, thereby avoiding the immigration
consequences he now faces.
The record does not support the conclusion that the sentencing judge would
have given Figueras a shorter sentence had counsel sought one, nor that he would
have proceeded to trial if his counsel acted differently. The same district judge
presided over both sentencing and the § 2255 proceedings. In denying the § 2255
motion, that judge made clear that he “would not have imposed less than a twelve-
month sentence … just so [Figueras] could avoid immigration consequences.” The
record also reflects that counsel “consistently” advised Figueras “that he would be
deported … as a result of pleading guilty …, including [to] … possession of stolen
mail.” Figueras nevertheless chose to plead guilty, “understanding … that he would
3
be deported.” Given Figueras’s criminal history and the apparent strength of the
government’s case against him, this was a rational decision. See Padilla, 559 U.S.
at 372.
AFFIRMED.
4