Case: 11-10407 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10407
________________________
District Court Nos. 1:09-cv-00629-CG,
1:06-cr-00206-CG-B-1
QUANG VAN NGUYEN,
Movant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
___________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
____________________________
(August 16, 2012)
Before JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges, and HOOD, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.
Case: 11-10407 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Following oral argument and a review of the record, we vacate the district
court’s order denying relief because we conclude that Mr. Nguyen is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Given the
definition of “ice” in USSG § 2D1.1(c), Note (C) (defining “ice,” for purposes of §
2D1.1, as “a mixture or substance containing d-methamphetamine hydrochloride of
at least 80% purity”), this is not one of those cases where the “motion and the files
and records of the case show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
2255.
On remand, the district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on Mr.
Nguyen’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by
failing to object to the methamphetamine being “ice” for purposes of § 2D1.1. At the
evidentiary hearing, Mr. Nguyen shall have the burden of showing (1) that his
counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to object, and (2) that there is a
reasonable probability that the deficient performance affected the outcome of the
sentencing hearing (i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that, had counsel
objected, the government would not have been able to establish that the
methamphetamine was “ice” under § 2D1.1(c), Note (C)). See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) (defining a “reasonable probability as a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome”). At the conclusion
2
Case: 11-10407 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 3 of 3
of the evidentiary hearing, the district court shall issue findings of fact and
conclusions of law and enter a new judgment granting or denying § 2255 relief.
The district court shall appoint counsel for Mr. Nguyen pursuant to Rule 8(C)
of the Rules Governing § 2255 Motions, which provides that “[i]f an evidentiary
hearing is required, the judge shall appoint counsel for a movant who qualifies for the
appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)[.]” See Sheperd v. United
States, 253 F.3d 585, 587 (11th Cir. 2001). The district court may wish to consider
appointing, as Mr. Nguyen’s counsel for the evidentiary hearing, the attorney who
was court-appointed to represent Mr. Nguyen on appeal, as that attorney is now
familiar with the record.
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
3