United States of America v. George Kostas Stantzos

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2231
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GEORGE KOSTAS STANTZOS,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell.
(Action No. 98-CR-00164 (WWC))
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 16, 2002
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: January 24, 2002 )
________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant George Kostas Stantzos ("Stantzos") takes this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2255, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial.
Specifically, Appellant alleges that in allowing his mother to testify at trial in the absence
of an interpreter, his attorney effectively deprived him of the competent assistance
guaranteed to him by the Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we find that Appellant
was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and we affirm the District Court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion.
Following a jury trial, Stantzos was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 942(c)(1)(A) for
carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and on March 3, 1999, he was
sentenced by the District Court to the mandatory term of five years imprisonment,
consecutive to a sentence of four to eight years imprisonment that he has received in state
court for the underlying drug offense.
On November 24, 1999, this Court affirmed Stantzos’s conviction, rejecting his
argument on appeal that there was insufficient evidence that he carried a gun in relation to
a drug offense. On October 16, 2000, Stantzos filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion, alleging
that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, and requesting the vacation of his
sentence. This motion was denied by the District Court six months later, and this appeal
followed.
In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must
demonstrate that 1) his attorney’s performance was deficient, and 2) that this deficiency
actively prejudiced his defense. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

-- 1 of 2 --

(1984). Stantzos alleges that his mother was the only witness other than himself whose
testimony was capable of establishing that the gun he had on his person during his
participation in the drug transaction was to be used for self-protection at the job he was
traveling to, and not in conjunction with the subject transaction.
We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that counsel was not derelict in
failing to procure an interpreter. Here, the decision not to hire an interpreter may very
well have been a tactical decision, either because the witness’s knowledge was limited or
because the testimony may have been unfavorable. In any case, Appellant has failed to
establish that the result of his trial would have been any different in light of the
substantial evidence in this case. See id.. We therefore agree with the District Court’s
ultimate assessment that the lack of a translator in this case is not a ground for vacating
Appellant’s conviction. Accordingly, for the reasons substantially set forth in the written
opinion of the District Court, we will AFFIRM.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/Julio M. Fuentes
___________________________
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --