Doe 2 v. United States

Background

John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, a father and son, filed petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate or correct their criminal sentences. Both claimed that their lawyers provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a corrected translation of a recorded Spanish-language prison call, identified as DX-534. They argued that the call was about selling cars, not drug trafficking, and that the allegedly inaccurate translation caused the court to view them as dishonest cooperators and impose longer sentences.

Both petitioners had pleaded guilty to drug-trafficking and false-statement offenses. Their cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration later became disputed. The court found that both had engaged in dishonesty, including conduct involving drug trafficking and false statements. The court sentenced each petitioner to 12 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release, below their respective guideline ranges. John Doe #2 also argued that he should have received safety-valve relief, which can allow a sentence below a mandatory minimum when statutory requirements are met.

Claims and Legal Standard

To succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, a petitioner must show both that the lawyer’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the error harmed the outcome. The court addressed only the harm requirement because it concluded that neither petitioner was prejudiced.

Translation Claim

The court found that the petitioners’ new translation was not credible. It relied on the recorded audio, John Doe #1’s testimony after hearing the recording during the related trial, and the surrounding evidence to conclude that the conversation was properly understood as a coded discussion about drug trafficking. The court also noted that the alleged correction would not change the fact that the petitioners had communicated in prison despite being barred from doing so, or that they had denied communicating.

The court further held that, even if the conversation had been about cars, the petitioners’ other established dishonesty would have supported the same sentencing conclusions. For John Doe #1, the court cited his drug trafficking while acting as an informant, perjury, and underreporting income to the Internal Revenue Service. For John Doe #2, the court concluded that his perjury and other obstructive conduct meant he could not show the complete and truthful cooperation required for safety-valve relief. The court therefore held that the alleged failure to correct the translation did not affect either petitioner’s sentence.

John Doe #2’s Sentence-Reasonableness Claim

John Doe #2 also argued that his sentence was constitutionally unreasonable. The court rejected that claim, noting that the sentence was substantially below the guideline range and that the sentencing court had considered his attempted cooperation and dishonesty. The court concluded that his 12-year sentence was reasonable.

Disposition

The court denied both John Doe #1’s and John Doe #2’s ineffective-assistance claims. It also denied John Doe #2’s claim that his sentence was constitutionally unreasonable. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petitioners had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at docket entries 34 and 43.