United States v. Thomas Boren

MEMORANDUM

Thomas Boren appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 120-month sentence. Boren contends that his counsel was ineffective during plea bargaining. See Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 , 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012). We review denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and the effectiveness of counsel de novo. United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.2012).

To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Boren must show: (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The two-part Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea-bargaining. Lafler, 132 S.Ct. at 1384 .

Counsel’s advice that Boren reject the April 2006 offer was not unreasonable because counsel had not had an opportunity to inspect the hard drive on Boren’s computer and it was possible that there were fewer images on the hard drive than the government alleged. Moreover, the record indicates that counsel could not have realistically accessed the hard…