F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
February 21, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 06-3332
v. (D.C. No. 05-CV-3213-CM and
04-CR-20061-CM )
GREGORY T. SIM S, (D . Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Gregory T. Sims, a federal inmate appearing pro se,
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his
sentence pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2255. On January 24, we granted M r. Sims a
Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) w ith respect to his contention that his
attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the district court’s
erroneous Sentencing Guideline calculation. Thereafter, the government
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case
is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
confessed error and moved for remand. Our jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we remand for resentencing.
Background
On July 19, 2004, M r. Sims pled guilty to one count of possession of a
firearm by a previously convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), M r. Sims’s crime
warranted a base offense level of 24 because he committed the offense subsequent
to at least tw o violent felony convictions. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (2003).
Pursuant to the plea agreement, M r. Sims made–and the government did not
oppose–a motion for a two-level reduction for his acceptance of responsibility
with an additional one-level reduction for timely notifying the government of his
intent to plead guilty. R. Doc. 44 at 3. The court granted these motions and
determined that, with a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of
VI, the applicable guideline range was 77 to 96 months. R. Doc. 50 at 5-6.
M r. Sims, his attorney, and the Assistant United States Attorney each
informed the court that there were no objections to these findings. Id. at 6. M r.
Sims’s attorney then asked the court to sentence his client “at the low end of the
applicable guideline range,” and the Assistant United States Attorney
recommended “a sentence of 77 months, based upon the plea agreement.” Id. at
7. The court accepted these recommendations and sentenced M r. Sims to 77
-2-
months in prison and restitution in the amount of $228. R. Doc. 48.
On M ay 9, 2005, M r. Sims filed his § 2255 motion. R. Doc. 51. The
district court rejected his claims, determining that he failed to establish any
defects in his counsel’s performance or any prejudice caused by his counsel’s
decisions. R. Doc. 57 at 6-7. W e then granted a COA on one claim contained in
the motion: whether M r. Sims’s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
district court’s finding that he had two qualifying prior convictions for crimes of
violence.
Discussion
In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 petition, we examine the district court’s
legal rulings de novo. United States v. Horey, 333 F.3d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir.
2003). A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must typically
show both that his counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness” and that the deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland v.
W ashington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 692 (1984). However, the failure to object to
the legally erroneous imposition of an enhancement under the Sentencing
Guidelines constitutes ineffective assistance. See Jansen v. United States, 369
F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2004).
The base offense level for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is 24 if the
defendant has two or more prior convictions for crimes of violence or controlled
-3-
substances offenses and 22 if the defendant has only one such prior conviction.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). A crime of violence is defined as a felony that “has as an
element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the
person of another, or . . . otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious
potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. § 4B1.2(a). However,
convictions for crimes of violence do not impact the base offense level under
§ 2K2.1(a) if the “sentence [was] imposed more than fifteen years prior to the
defendant’s commencement of the instant offense . . . unless the defendant’s
incarceration extended into this fifteen-year period.” Id. § 4A1.1 cmt. n.1.
M r. Sims does not dispute that his 1983 manslaughter conviction, for which
he w as imprisoned until 1990, was properly considered a prior conviction for a
crime of violence under §§ 2K2.1(a) and 4B1.2(a). However, he argues that he
has no other qualifying conviction; his other convictions are either too old or do
not fit the definition of a “crime of violence” or “controlled substances offense.”
The government agrees, admitting that the PSR mistakenly counted a 1980 armed
robbery conviction as the second prior violent felony. See Aplee. Br. at 3. M r.
Sims w as released from prison for this offense in 1981, making it far too stale to
fit into § 4A 1.1’s fifteen-year window . See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 cmt. n.1. Thus,
M r. Sims had only one qualifying prior violent felony conviction, and his base
-4-
offense level should have been 22 rather than 24. 1
The district court used an incorrect base offense level in sentencing M r.
Sims, and there is a possibility that his sentence would have been lower if he had
been sentenced using the correct base offense level and the lower attendant
Guideline range. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of M r.
Sims’s § 2255 motion on this point and REM AND for resentencing.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
1
A base offense level of 22 would have resulted in a total offense level of
19, leading to a sentencing range of 63 to 78 months.
-5-