Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-6834
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00032-NKM-1; 3:13-cv-80601-NKMRSB)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Wayne Barnes seeks to appeal the district courts
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his motion for reconsideration.
For
the
reasons
that
follow,
we
conclude
that
cocaine,
(b)(1)(A),
21
in
U.S.C.
violation
846
of
(2012)
21
U.S.C.
(Count
1);
841(a)(1),
conspiracy
to
cocaine,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
(2012)
and
21
defendant
convicted
of
drug
trafficking
offense
is
felony
drug
offense
has
become
final
or
mandatory
21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A).
A [f]elony drug
erroneously advised him that he was eligible for more than one
851 enhancement.
To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant
must
show
[(1)]
that
counsels
performance
was
defense.
(1984).
a
Strickland
v.
Washington,
466
U.S.
668,
687
defendant
can
show
prejudice
only
by
demonstrating
trial.
Missouri
v.
Frye,
132
S.
Ct.
1399,
1409
(2012)
plea
agreement
included
provision
confirming
possession
with
intent
to
distribute
cocaine.
The
plea
to
21
U.S.C.
851,
by
reason
of
any
other
prior
that,
although
Barnes
stipulated
to
one
851
enhancement,
mandatory
life
which
sentence.
would
After
have
the
subjected
court
Barnes
accepted
to
Barnes
guilty plea, the Assistant United States Attorney stated for the
record that the Government did not think that a second 851
enhancement would have been possible.
everyone understand that?
it.
Barnes
asserts
that
counsel
was
ineffective
for
eligible
May
2000
conviction,
for
second
Maryland
which
imprisonment.
professional
for
We
judgment
felonious
he
was
defense
possession
sentenced
accord
.
enhancement
to
measure
on
of
heroin
five
years
counsels
heavy
based
reasonable
of
deference,
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, and hold that Barnes has failed
to show that his attorneys performance was deficient.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
orders
denying
We deny a certificate
motion
for
dispense
with
oral
contentions
are
appointment
argument
adequately
of
counsel
because
presented
in
the
the
is
denied.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.