Clara Loefer v. United States

Filing

OPINION FILED - THE COURT: ROGER L. WOLLMAN, KERMIT E. BYE and MICHAEL J. MELLOY. Michael J. Melloy, Authoring Judge (PUBLISHED) [3663258] [09-1651]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 09-1651
___________
Clara Sophie Loefer,
Appellant,
v.
United States of America,
Appellee.

*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
* District of South Dakota.
*
*
*
___________
Submitted: February 11, 2010
Filed: May 11, 2010
___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Clara Sophie Loefer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846.
The district court1 imposed a sentence of eighty-seven months' imprisonment after
applying a three-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline
§ 3B1.1(b) for Loefer's leadership role in the conspiracy. The factual basis for this
enhancement was contained in Loefer's presentence investigation report ("PSR"), to

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota.

Appellate Case: 09-1651

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258

which Loefer's prior counsel did not object. Loefer filed a direct appeal to our court
arguing that the district court relied on facts outside the record in making its
sentencing determination. We rejected Loefer's claim, finding that the uncontested
PSR stated that the drugs were primarily sold out of Loefer's house and that Loefer
had "some control" over members of the conspiracy. United States v. Loefer, 215 F.
App'x 567, 568 (8th Cir. 2007) (unpublished per curiam). This, we concluded,
rendered the district court's determination of Loefer's leadership role not clearly
erroneous. Id.
Loefer then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging
that her sentencing counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by not
objecting to the PSR. After a hearing, the district court adopted the recommendation
of the magistrate judge2 and denied Loefer's motion, finding that sentencing counsel's
decision not to object was tactical and based upon sound trial strategy. The district
court granted Loefer's motion for a certificate of appealability. We review the district
court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States
v. Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851, 854–55 (8th Cir. 2006).
To maintain a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, Loefer must prove
that her prior counsel's performance was deficient and that she suffered prejudice as
a result of this deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Because of the problems inherent in hindsight analysis, we "'indulge a strong
presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance.'" United States v. Staples, 410 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). Accordingly, decisions involving trial strategy
are "virtually unchallengeable." Link v. Luebbers, 469 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir.
2006). Loefer argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel both at

2

The Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
-2-

Appellate Case: 09-1651

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258

sentencing and on direct appeal. We find that Loefer has failed to satisfy Strickland's
deficient-performance prong and therefore do not address the parties' arguments in
regard to prejudice.
Loefer first claims that prior counsel was deficient for failing to object to the
PSR. We disagree. Prior counsel's testimony from the evidentiary hearing indicates
that his decision not to object to the relevant portions of the PSR was a well-reasoned,
tactical decision. Prior counsel testified that he was aware of the fact that his decision
not to make an objection to facts in the PSR would result in the court's acceptance of
those facts as true. However, after talking with his client and reviewing the relevant
evidence, he believed that the statements in the PSR were true. Further, he believed
that the case law supported the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Finally,
prior counsel testified that he believed making a meritless objection could risk losing
credibility with the district court and result in the Government calling witnesses to
prove Loefer's role in the conspiracy. These risks, he testified, outweighed any benefit
that could come from objecting to the PSR. After reviewing this testimony in light of
the record in this case, we are convinced that prior counsel's decision not to object to
the PSR was an objectively reasonable decision based on sound trial strategy.
Loefer also claims that prior counsel's arguments at sentencing and on appeal,
when viewed in light of prior counsel's decision not to object to the PSR, constituted
a contradictory, and therefore constitutionally deficient, trial strategy. Again, we
disagree. The record indicates that prior counsel made two arguments in regard to
sentencing after opting not to object to the PSR. First, he argued at sentencing that,
although the facts supported a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b),
the enhancement overstated Loefer's level of control in the conspiracy—an argument
for a lower overall sentence. Second, he argued at sentencing and on appeal that the
district court utilized facts outside of the record during sentencing. These arguments
are neither inconsistent with a decision not to object to the PSR nor do they render
prior counsel's performance constitutionally deficient. Given prior counsel's strategy
-3-

Appellate Case: 09-1651

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258

of avoiding the risks accompanying objection to the PSR, these arguments were
reasonable and part of a sound trial strategy.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
_______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 09-1651

Page: 4

Date Filed: 05/11/2010 Entry ID: 3663258