Fernando Arias-Gonzales v. United States, No. 12-1054 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. District court did not err in rejecting Arias- Gonzalez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1054 ___________________________ Fernando Arias-Gonzales, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant, v. United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: August 17, 2012 Filed: September 4, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After a jury found Fernando Arias-Gonzales (Arias) guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, he was sentenced to 300 months in prison. This court affirmed. See United States v. Arias-Gonzales, 356 Fed. Appx. 895 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3342 (2010). Arias then filed this motion for 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 relief, which the district court1 denied following an evidentiary hearing. Arias appeals. Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Arias did not establish that his trial counsel was ineffective. Arias, who did not plead guilty and was subject to deportation apart from the criminal proceedings, did not establish prejudice from counsel s alleged failure to discuss deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction. Nor did he show prejudice from counsel s purported failure to understand or explain the Sentencing Guidelines. See Blankenship v. United States, 159 F.3d 336, 338 (8th Cir. 1998) (when considering whether defense suffered prejudice, court must determine whether reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, result of proceeding would have been different); cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether his plea carries risk of deportation). We also agree that Arias cannot relitigate a standard-of-proof argument rejected on direct appeal, see Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 2011). The the relevant drug statutes are not void for vagueness, or otherwise invalid. We decline to expand the scope of the certificate of appealability to include Arias s new pro se arguments. See Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Donald E. O Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
