United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
Jay C. Zainey United States District Judge.
the Court is defendant Jaime Jauregui's Motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Rec. Doc.
#229). The government filed an opposition to this motion
(Rec. Doc. #237). The Court has carefully reviewed all
matters pertinent to the motion in this criminal case. Based
upon this review, the Court's clear recollection and
understanding of the proceedings, and application of
governing legal authorities, defendant is entitled to no
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the Motion is
federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of
Louisiana returned an indictment and superseding indictment
charging petitioner Jaime Jauregui with the following: Count
1 - Conspiracy to Violate the Gun Control Act & the
National Firearms Act in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371;
Count 2 - Possession of unregistered firearms in violation of
26 U.S.C. §5841(a)(1), 586(d) and 5871. On October 29,
2014, Jaime Jauregui was found guilty by a jury on counts one
and two and sentenced on March 18, 2015 to 60 months
imprisonment as to Count 1 and 120 months imprisonment to
Count 2, to run concurrently. (Rec. Doc. #200). On March 17,
2015, Jauregui filed a notice of appeal. On February 16,
2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's judgment. (Rec. Doc. #221). On May 31,
2016, the United States Supreme Court denied Jaime
Jauregui's writ of certiorari (Rec. Doc. #222). Jauregui
certified that he mailed the instant motion to vacate
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 on May 26, 2017. He raises the
allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and
on appeal, for not being allowed to exercise his
constitutional right to testify at trial, as well as issues
regarding the jury venire and the Government's exclusion
of prospective jurors based on race.
Motions to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
2255 “provides the federal prisoner with a
post-conviction remedy to test the legality of his detention
by filing a motion to vacate judgment and sentence in his
trial court.” U.S. v. Grammas, 376 F.3d 433,
436 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Kuhn v. U.S., 432 F.2d
82, 83 (5th Cir. 1970)). The statute establishes that a
prisoner in custody under a sentence of a federal court
“may move the court which imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Where there has
been a “denial or infringement of the constitutional
rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable
to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the
judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence
him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may
appear appropriate.” Id.
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for violations of
constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries in
federal criminal cases that could not have been raised on
direct appeal and would result in a fundamental miscarriage
of justice. U.S. v. Petrus, 44 F.3d 1004 (5th Cir.
1994) (citing U.S. v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th
district court may deny a § 2255 motion without
conducting any type of evidentiary hearing if “the
motion and the files and records of the case conclusively
show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”
U.S. v. Arguellas, 78 Fed.Appx. 984, 986 (5th Cir.
2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255; U.S. v.
Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992)). In those
cases, however, where the record does not conclusively negate
a prisoner's entitlement to relief, contested fact issues
may not be decided on affidavits alone. Id. (citing
Owens v. U.S., 551 F.2d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1977)).
No hearing is necessary if the issues raised have been
previously decided on direct appeal, contain no
constitutional violation, or lack support in the record.
U.S. v. McCollom, 664 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1981)
(citing Buckelew v. U.S., 575 F.2d 515 (5th Cir.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
accused is entitled, as a matter of constitutional law, to
assistance of counsel on a direct appeal. U.S. v.
Guerra, 94 F.3d 989, 994 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing
Douglas v. Cal., 372 U.S. 353 (1963)). The
representation must be effective. Id. (citing
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985); Lombard v.
Lynaugh, 868 F.2d 1475, 1481 (5th Cir. 1989)).
prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the
petitioner must satisfy the two-part test enunciated in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
First, the petitioner must establish that counsel's
performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Grammas, 376 F.3d at 436 (citing
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). That standard requires
that counsel “research relevant facts and law, or make
an informed decision that certain avenues will not be
fruitful.” Id. (quoting U.S. v.
Conley, 349 F.3d 837, 841 (5th Cir. 2003)).
second showing that the petitioner must make is that he was
prejudiced by counsel's substandard performance.
Grammas, 376 F.3d at 436. “To prove prejudice,
the defendant must show that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” Id. (quoting Conley, 349
F.3d at 841-42). Any amount of jail time has Sixth Amendment
implications that can satisfy Strickland's
prejudice prong. Grammas, 376 F.3d at 436 (quoting
Conley, 349 F.3d at 842). If the defendant makes an
insufficient showing on either one of the two ...