Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
08-35500•Anh Bi Lee, also known as Anh Bi Le v. United States of America
08-35500Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit20.01.2010
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior United States District
Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANH BI LEE, also known as Anh Bi Le,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-35500
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01666-JCC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL, ***
District Judge.
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Anh Bi Le (“Le”), a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea
bargaining process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253,
and 2255, and we affirm.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), sets forth the two-part
standard for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). If a defendant fails to meet either prong of the
test, the claim of ineffective assistance must be denied. Strickland, 466 U.S. at
700. First, a defendant must show that, considering the totality of the
circumstances, counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Id. at 687–88. This can be accomplished by a defendant’s
identification of acts or omissions that are not the result of reasonable professional
judgment. Id. at 690. Second, the defendant must affirmatively prove prejudice by
showing that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. Id. at 693. Additionally, there remains a strong
presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the range of reasonable
professional assistance. Id. at 689.
In Gonzalez v. United States, 33 F.3d 1047, 1048 (9th Cir. 1994), we
considered whether the defendant’s counsel was ineffective because counsel did
-- 2 of 4 --
3
not request a qualified interpreter’s presence to assist in court proceedings. After
stating that the Strickland test applied, we found that “Gonzalez . . . failed to
demonstrate that [his counsel] was ineffective with respect to recognizing
Gonzalez’s language difficulties.” Id. at 1051. The record evidenced that counsel
would not have been aware of Gonzalez’s claimed inability to understand English,
and that Gonzalez did not claim that he misunderstood the charges against him,
only the length of his sentence. Id. We said that “[g]iven the totality of the
circumstances, [counsel]’s assistance with respect to Gonzalez’s language
difficulty was reasonable.” Id.
The same holds true in the instant case. Le has pointed to no evidence
indicating that his attorney, Robert Goldsmith, should have known about his
difficulty understanding the English language. Le spoke English in his meetings
with Goldsmith, corresponded in English through written letters to Goldsmith and
motions to the court, and never evinced a lack of understanding to either the court
or Goldsmith. Furthermore, at the evidentiary hearing, Le could not identify any
information he should have known when trying to decide between accepting the
guilty plea or going to trial, and he failed show that the evidence used against him
was not fully explained prior to trial. Finally, Goldsmith brought an interpreter to
the final plea negotiations, without a request from Le, to ensure that Le could fully
-- 3 of 4 --
4
understand the government’s offer. In light of “all the circumstances,” we hold
that Goldsmith provided objectively reasonable assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at
688.
AFFIRMED.
-- 4 of 4 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.