Hamberg v. United States, No. 11-1415 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and of two counts of using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. At issue was whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of two consecutive sentences for the two firearms convictions based on defendant's employment of the same firearm in a single-drug-trafficking offense. The court held that defendant's counsel acted within the range of professional competence when he chose not to object to the district court's application of the settled law. Because counsel's performance was not deficient, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance failed and the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: prisoner case - habeas. Hamberg used his firearm in two different places, against two difference victims and for two different purposes, and, under the law of his circuit, each instance of use is separately punishable as a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(C); as a result, his attorney's failure to object to consecutive sentences on the two counts of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug offense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
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.