Thursday, April 05, 2012

U.S. v. Cano, 2012 WL 1010330 (3/27/12) (Wyo.) (unpub'd) - The 10th denies appellate counsel's request to withdraw under Anders because the government conceded the d. ct. applied the wrong guideline range based on an un-noticed misreading of the guideline sentencing table [offense level 21 and criminal history II is 41-51 months, not 51-63]. But the 10th rejects the defendant's other claims he raised pro se, even though an attorney never argued on behalf of those issues.

U.S. v. Viera, 2012 WL 1021923 (3/28/12) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - A plea agreement waiver of the right to pursue § 2255 relief waives the right to an IA claim that counsel failed to pursue an appeal, despite the defendant's request that counsel do so. Thus, the 10th's decision in U.S. v. Garrett, 402 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2005), finding it to be IA to fail to appeal after the defendant requests an appeal, despite an appeal waiver, means nothing if there is also a § 2255 waiver.

Schubler v. Holder, 2012 WL 1021957 (3/28/12) (unpub'd) - The reference in the petty offense exception to inadmissibility, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), to "the maximum penalty possible for the crime" means the statutory maximum, not the top of the applicable guideline range. So, the exception did not apply to the alien's conviction for wire fraud, which has more than a one year stat max.

U.S. v. Espinoza-Aguilar, 2012 WL 1059739 (3/30/12) (Wyo.) (unpub'd) - Defense counsel had no conflict of interest after it was discovered counsel had given the defendant information the court had ordered counsel not to give him. [The co-defendant complained the defendant was threatening him after the defendant received the information]. Counsel became hysterical when the government threatened to hold counsel in contempt. But there was no evidence counsel's representation changed after the discovery, says the 10th.