United States v. Robert O'Campo

MEMORANDUM

Robert O’Campo was convicted of conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court increased his offense level by two for possession of a firearm. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). O’Campo’s sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Ocampo, 265 Fed.Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2008). O’Campo subsequently filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence on several grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion. On this appeal, through counsel, O’Campo raises only one claim of ineffective assistance at sentencing. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective in opposing the two-level increase because his arguments were foreclosed by Ninth Circuit law, and claims that counsel should have instead argued that there was insufficient evidence of “possession” of a firearm.

Even if counsel’s strategy was objectively unreasonable, O’Campo’s ineffective assistance claim fails because he can’t show a “reasonable probability” that, but for counsel’s allegedly erroneous argument, the two-level increase for possessing a firearm wouldn’t have been applied. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.…