United States v. Jermaine Mitchell

MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Jermaine Alonzo Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for habeas relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Mitchell contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to strike a prospective juror for cause. This contention fails because Mitchell has demonstrated neither deficient performance nor prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Mitchell also contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This claim fails for lack of prejudice under Strickland , because the Supreme Court has held that “cocaine base” under 21 U.S.C. § 841 encompasses cocaine in its chemically basic form, not just “crack cocaine.” See DePierre v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2225, 2237 , 180 L.Ed.2d 114 (2011).

Mitchell further contends that the trial judge committed structural error by failing to excuse a prospective juror for actual bias. Even if this argument were not…