Cardenas v. United States

Background

Christian Cardenas pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). His plea agreement stipulated a Sentencing Guidelines range of 87 to 108 months, based in part on an agreed quantity of at least one kilogram of heroin. At sentencing, however, the Presentence Investigation Report calculated a range of 210 to 262 months after applying Guidelines § 2D1.1(a)(2), which increases the offense level when the offense of conviction establishes that death or serious bodily injury resulted from the substance.

The court imposed 96 months, below the calculated range. It stated that it would have imposed the same 96-month sentence even if it had used the range stipulated in the plea agreement. The court also imposed four years of supervised release. While Cardenas’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255—a motion asking the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence—was pending, the court reduced his prison sentence to 84 months because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cardenas was released on February 8, 2022, and was serving supervised release when the opinion was issued.

Claims and legal standard

Cardenas raised three ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. First, he argued that counsel failed to investigate the one-to-three-kilogram drug quantity attributed to him. Second, he argued that counsel should have objected as a matter of law that § 2D1.1(a)(2) did not apply because serious bodily injury was not an element of the offense charged or admitted in his plea. Third, he argued that counsel should have challenged the factual connection between his heroin and Victim-1’s overdose and requested a Fatico hearing, a hearing to resolve disputed sentencing facts.

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: the defendant must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the deficiency probably affected the result. The court emphasized that counsel’s strategic decisions receive substantial deference.

Failure to investigate drug quantity

The court rejected Cardenas’s argument that counsel should have investigated the drug quantity. Cardenas did not identify specific investigative avenues that would have produced favorable information. The one-kilogram quantity was also included in the plea agreement, and Cardenas had confirmed under oath that he understood the agreement and its stipulated Guidelines range.

The court found no prejudice at either the plea or sentencing stages. Cardenas did not allege that better advice would have led him to reject the plea and go to trial, obtain a better plea agreement, or receive a lower sentence. The court also noted that the plea agreement’s stipulated maximum of 108 months was below the 120-month statutory minimum he would have faced if convicted at trial on the indictment. At sentencing, challenging the agreed quantity could have breached the plea agreement, and Cardenas provided no basis to conclude that such a challenge would have succeeded.

Legal challenge to the sentencing enhancement

Cardenas argued that counsel should have relied on decisions from outside the Second Circuit to contend that § 2D1.1(a)(2) did not apply. The court noted that the Second Circuit had recognized a disagreement among courts about the provision’s interpretation but had not decided the issue. The court did not resolve that legal question because Cardenas could not show prejudice.

The court had imposed 96 months, a sentence within the range stipulated in the plea agreement and below the 108-month threshold for Cardenas’s appeal waiver. More importantly, the sentencing judge had expressly stated that the same sentence would have been imposed even under the stipulated Guidelines calculation. The court therefore denied this ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice.

Factual challenge and proposed Fatico hearing

Cardenas also argued that counsel should not have conceded that his heroin caused Victim-1’s overdose. He pointed to medical records showing no fentanyl in Victim-1’s system. Counsel instead accepted responsibility and emphasized Cardenas’s remorse, his lack of intent to injure anyone, and his role in contacting emergency personnel who helped save Victim-1’s life.

The court found that choice reasonable trial strategy, particularly because the record included references to recorded calls in which Cardenas acknowledged knowledge of Victim-1’s overdose, Diaz’s sale of Cardenas’s heroin to Victim-1, and the danger posed by Cardenas’s heroin. The court also noted that it had allowed Cardenas and counsel to confer about requesting a Fatico hearing, that counsel declined the hearing, and that Cardenas said he was comfortable with that decision.

The court separately found no prejudice. It again relied on the sentencing judge’s statement that the same sentence would have been imposed regardless of the enhancement. The court also said the sentence rested on facts Cardenas did not contest, including that he knew his heroin was dangerous and continued selling it after learning that people had overdosed.

Disposition

The court denied Cardenas’s § 2255 petition. It determined that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the case files conclusively showed that he was not entitled to relief. The court also ruled that Cardenas had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. Finally, it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The order resolved the identified docket in the criminal case, 17-cr-339 (AJN), and directed the clerk to close civil case 20-cv-4509.