USA v. Haney

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kyle Adam Haney,
Petitioner,
v.
United States of America,
Respondent.
No. CV-24-00426-TUC-JCH
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Kyle Adam Haney’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Petition”)
(Doc. 1).1 Petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing
because his attorney failed to present mitigating evidence related to his mental health. See
Doc. 1 at 4, 5. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the Petition.
I. Background
Petitioner is serving a 120-month sentence for possession of child pornography. See
CR Doc. 56.2 Petitioner accepted a plea agreement with a sentencing range of 60 to 200
months, CR Doc. 30 ¶ 8, and waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence if
imposed consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, id. ¶ 18.
1 Petitioner also filed a “Reply to Failure to Respond and/or Motion for Summary Vacatur”
(Doc. 7). Petitioner filed this motion after the Government filed, and the Court had already
granted, a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. See Docs. 5, 6. The Government
filed its Response before the updated deadline set in the Court’s extension Order.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 7) will be denied.
2 This Order refers to documents filed in the above-titled action, 4:24-CV-00246, and the
underlying criminal case, 4:21-CR-02970. Documents in this case are labeled with “CV.”
Documents in the related criminal case are labeled with “CR.”
Case 4:21-cr-02970-JCH-EJM Document 67 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Presentence Investigative Report (“PSR”) computed Petitioner’s offense level
at 30 and his criminal history category as V. CR Doc. 46 at 6–12. The PSR also covered
Petitioner’s offender characteristics, including his physical condition, substance abuse
history, mental and emotional health, and employment record, among others. See id.
at 15–21. In the mental and emotional health section, the PSR discussed Petitioner’s major
depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, insomnia, restless leg syndrome,
and adjustment disorder diagnoses before his arrest. Id. at 17. It also summarized
Petitioner’s 2022 Psychosexual Evaluation and the resulting provisional diagnoses. Id. The
PSR’s employment record section stated that “[f]rom 2005 to his arrest in 2021, [Petitioner]
was unemployed and received $1,460 a month in Social Security Disability income due to
his bipolar diagnosis and chronic back pain.” Id. at 19.
Petitioner’s Psychosexual Evaluation (“PPE”) was attached to the original PSR. See
CR Doc. 40-1. The PPE summarized Petitioner’s social history, including his employment
history, and noted that “[Petitioner] went on disability in 2005 because of being diagnosed
with bipolar disorder, and because of chronic back pain from a traffic accident, and from
heavy lifting working at the steel fabricating company. He decided to go back to work and
was working for a temporary agency in Tucson, AZ when he was arrested in the index
offense.” Id. at 3. Like the PSR, the PPE discussed Petitioner’s prior medical diagnoses
and history of alcohol and drug use. Id. at 3–4, 6. The PPE summarized the test results
related to Petitioner’s mental health and self-reported psychological symptoms, and found
the following provisional diagnoses: stimulant use disorder (amphetamine-type substance
and cocaine), alcohol use disorder, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder,
adjustment disorder with anxiety, restless leg syndrome, unspecified insomnia disorder,
and bipolar I disorder. Id. at 15–16.
Petitioner’s counsel submitted a Sentencing Memorandum that discussed the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. CR Doc. 45 at 9–15. Relevant here, the
Memorandum stated that Petitioner was high on methamphetamine when he committed the
offense and argued he would not have committed the offense while sober. Id. at 7. It also
Case 4:21-cr-02970-JCH-EJM Document 67 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
listed his “debilitating health conditions,” including his mental health conditions, and
stated, “it is crystal clear that Mr. Haney struggles with a litany of physical, mental, and
emotional ailments that rendered him vulnerable to addiction, which begat his involvement
in the criminal activity here.” Id. at 8.
At sentencing, Petitioner raised the issue of wanting a physical copy of the PSR. See
CR Sentencing TR at 5:2–6:13. When questioned by the Court, Petitioner agreed that he
had reviewed the PSR with his attorney for an hour and was satisfied that he understood
its contents. Id. at 5:17–6:13. Before sentencing, the Court reviewed and considered the
PSR and Petitioner’s Sentencing Memorandum. See Id. at 7:19–8:6. The Court concluded
Petitioner’s physical and mental health issues were “mitigating factors that warrant a
downward variance.” Id. at 29:24–30:4.3 Ultimately, the Court granted a downward
variance from the 151-to-188-month advisory guideline range and imposed a 120-month
sentence. See id. at 30:5–13.
II. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), a prisoner in federal custody may challenge his
conviction or sentence “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States.”4 To bring a § 2255 claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient,
and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To establish that counsel’s performance was deficient, a
petitioner must show “that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning
3 The Court’s Statement of Reasons (Doc. 53) lists Petitioner’s age, physical condition, and
remorse as the characteristics that led the Court to grant a downward variance. See Doc. 53
at 3. The record shows the Court also considered Plaintiff’s mental health as a mitigating
factor. See CR Sentencing TR at 29:24–30:4. Accordingly, the Statement of Reasons
should also have listed Petitioner’s mental and emotional condition as a reason for
variance.
4 Section 2255(b) provides that, “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case
conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, a petitioner is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing.” An evidentiary hearing is not required if the allegations are “palpably
incredible” or “patently frivolous” or if the issues can be conclusively decided based on
the evidence in the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977) (internal
quotation omitted); United States v. Mejia–Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting
that a “district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 claim where
the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief”).
Case 4:21-cr-02970-JCH-EJM Document 67 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. The inquiry is
whether counsel’s assistance was “reasonable considering all the circumstances,” and there
is “a strong presumption that a counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance.” Id. at 688–89. To affirmatively prove prejudice, a petitioner must
show “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694.
III. Analysis
Petitioner argues his sentence should be vacated on two grounds. First, Petitioner
argues his counsel acted unreasonably “by failing to acquire the records of movant’s
psychological diagnosis/illness that has been accepted/certified by the Social Security
Administration (SSA) and by failing to present those records/mitigating evidence to the
Court at sentencing.” Doc. 1 at 4. Petitioner alleges that although he asked for a copy of
the PSR, he did not receive one, and his counsel “sped read him the [PSR] off a tablet at
the detention center.” Id. Petitioner infers this was because his counsel “did not want
movant to discover that his SSA records/psychological diagnosis were not contained in the
PSR.” Id. Second, Petitioner argues he was prejudiced because “counsel’s deficient
performance deprived the Court of the information and opportunity to account for, and
impose, a sentence reflecting consideration of movant’s psychological issues.” Id. at 5.
Petitioner contends information related to his Social Security Disability claim “should have
been presented and should have served as the basis for a downward variance for diminished
capacity and/or under the ‘history and characteristics of the defendant’ prong of Section
3553(a).” Id.
Petitioner’s arguments are unfounded and factually incorrect.5 The PSR discussed
5 Though not relevant to whether counsel adequately informed the Court of Petitioner’s
mental health issues at sentencing, Petitioner’s concerns related to not receiving a copy of
the PSR have already been addressed. Petitioner raised this issue at sentencing, but when
questioned by the Court, he agreed he had gone over the PSR with his attorney for over an
hour. CR Doc. 65 at 4:22–6:13. Petitioner stated he was satisfied that he understood the
PSR’s contents and sentencing recommendations, and his attorney answered his questions
related to the PSR. Id. at 5:23–6:13. As explained below, the omissions Petitioner allege
do not exist, and it was not objectively unreasonable for counsel to deny Petitioner a
Case 4:21-cr-02970-JCH-EJM Document 67 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner’s mental health in depth and detailed his prior diagnoses and the provisional
diagnoses contained the PPE. See Doc. 46 at 17. It stated that “[f]rom 2005 to his arrest in
2021, [Petitioner] was unemployed and received $1,460 a month in Social Security
Disability income due to his bipolar diagnosis and chronic back pain.” Id. at 19. In total,
the PSR mentioned Petitioner’s bipolar diagnosis—the only mental health diagnosis listed
as the reason for his supplemental Social Security Disability income—three times. See id.
at 17, 19. Petitioner’s PPE, which was filed with the PSR, also discussed his diagnoses and
Social Security Disability. See CR Doc. 40-1 at 3 (“[Petitioner] went on disability in 2005
because of being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and because of chronic back pain from
a traffic accident, and from heavy lifting working at the steel fabricating company.”); id.
at 4 (discussing diagnoses); id. at 16 (listing provisional diagnoses). The evaluation
summary discussed the ways in which Petitioner’s mental health may contribute to his risk
to reoffend, and the examiner recommended Petitioner continue to seek mental health
treatment. Id. at 16–20. Petitioner’s Sentencing Memorandum discussed the § 3553(a)
factors, listing his mental health diagnoses and describing them as “debilitating health
conditions.” Doc. 45 at 8. Petitioner’s counsel explicitly argued Petitioner “struggles with
a litany of physical, mental, and emotional ailments that rendered him vulnerable to
addiction, which begat his involvement in the criminal activity here.” Id.
In short, the Court was aware of and considered Petitioner’s mental health history
at sentencing. See CR Sentencing TR at 29:24–30:4 (“You have a long list of health
conditions that make your time [in] incarceration more difficult . . . . And I think . . . your
health issues, your mental health issues, those are mitigating factors that warrant a
downward variance.”). The materials the Court considered in preparation for sentencing
made Petitioner’s mental health struggles clear, and Petitioner’s counsel argued
Petitioner’s mental health was directly related to his addiction, which caused Petitioner to
engage in the offense. The sentencing information included Petitioner’s history of
physical copy of the PSR. See CR Doc. 59 (denying post-sentencing “Motion for Copy of
PSI [sic] Report” and directing Probation to direct Petitioner on how to proceed with the
process to review the PSR).
Case 4:21-cr-02970-JCH-EJM Document 67 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
receiving disability payments due in part to his bipolar disorder. The actual Social Security
records were not necessary for the Court to consider this undisputed fact.
Even assuming counsel’s representation was deficient, Petitioner has not shown
prejudice. The Court explicitly considered Petitioner’s mental health history as a mitigating
factor and granted a downward variance. There is not a reasonable probability that, had the
Court examined the actual Social Security Disability records discussing Petitioner’s bipolar
diagnosis and back pain, it would have imposed a shorter sentence.
IV. Order
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition (Doc. 1).
The Clerk of Court shall issue judgment accordingly and close this case. The Clerk of Court
is further directed to file this Order in the underlying related criminal action, Case No.
4:21-CR-02970 (addressing Doc. 60).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Reply to Failure to Respond
and/or Motion for Summary Vacatur (Doc. 7).
Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.
Case 4:21-cr-02970-JCH-EJM Document 67 Filed 10/28/25 Page 6 of 6