United States v. Andrew Hart Thomas, IV

50 F.3d 18 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Hart THOMAS, IV, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-35430. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 6, 1995. * Decided March 9, 1995. Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Even assuming defendant received deficient advice from trial counsel regarding acceptance of responsibility, defendant has failed to show he suffered any prejudice from that advice. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984), defendant had to demonstrate a "reasonable probability" that the outcome of his sentencing hearing would have been different had he received effective representation. We agree with the district court that defendant failed to meet this burden. Defendant testified that, had he received effective assistance of counsel, he would have pleaded guilty and demonstrated genuine acceptance of responsibility for his…