Ramirez v. United States, No. 13-1187 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective under the Strickland and Frye standards for failing to advise petitioner that the government had expressed an interest as to whether he was willing to cooperate against other individuals. The district court correctly concluded that the government never extended petitioner a formal plea offer because the government merely expressed an interest in negotiating. Consequently, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. Because petitioner did not obtain a certificate of appealability on his remaining claims, the court did not consider them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's opinion in Ramirez's direct appeal, see United States v. Ramirez, 397 F. App'x 283 (8th Cir. 2010). With respect to Ramirez's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, since the government never extended a formal plea offer, Ramirez could not show prejudice from his attorney's failure to communicate the informal discussions; court would not consider Ramirez's other issues as the district court did not grant a certificate of appealability on the issues. Judge Bye, dissenting.
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.