Eugene Slone v. United States

QU ES TION P RES EN TED Th e pet it ion er , E u gen e Slon e, is a feder a l in m a t e wh o plea ded gu ilt y in 2015 t o ch a r ges u n der 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a )(1)(B) for h is pu r por t ed r ole in a m u r der -for -h ir e plot in t h e E a st er n Dist r ict of Ken t u cky. Th e Gover n m en t a lleged t h a t Slon e pa id t o h a ve t wo people killed beca u se h e believed t h ey wer e su pplyin g feder a l la w en for cem en t wit h in for m a t ion r ega r din g Slon e’s oxycodon e dist r ibu t ion r in g. H owever , it ca m e t o ligh t befor e t r ia l t h a t n eit h er vict im wa s a feder a l in for m a n t . Th is r a ised t h e qu est ion a s t o wh et h er Slon e’s belief t h a t t h e vict im s wer e feder a l in for m a n t s wa s en ough t o ch a r ge h im u nder 18 U.S.C. § 1513 or wh et h er t h e Gover n m en t la cked su bject m a t t er ju r isdict ion . Slon e’s t r ia l cou n sel decided n ot t o pr ess t h e issu e a n d in st ea d a dvised h im t o a ccept t h e Gover n m en t ’s offer of a bin din g plea a gr eem en t . Su bsequ en t ly, Slon e execu t ed t h e plea dea l a n d wa s sen t en ced t o 25 yea r s in pr ison , per t h e plea dea l. In 2016, Slon e filed a m ot ion t o va ca t e, set a side, or cor r ect h is sen t en ce u n der 28 U.S.C. § 2255, cla im ing t h a t h is t r ia l cou n sel a ct ed in effect ively by fa ilin g t o ch a llen ge t h e Cou r t ’s su bject m a t t er ju r isdict ion a n d t h a t h e en t er ed the plea a gr eem en t u n kn owin gly and in volu n t a rily. F ollowin g a n eviden t ia r y h ea r in g wh er e Slon e a n d h is t r ia l a t t or n eys t est ified, t h e Dist r ict Cou r t den ied h is § 2255 m ot ion a n d declin ed t o issu e a Cer t ifica t e of Appea la bilit y. Slon e a ppea led t o t h e Sixt h Cir cu it , wh ich a lso declin ed t o issu e a Cer t ifica t e of Appea la bilit y. Wh en r a isin g a n in effect ive a ssist a n ce of cou n sel cla im , a defen da n t m u st pr ove bot h (1) deficien t per for m a n ce a n d (2) pr eju dice. S trick lan d v. Wash in gton , 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). Th e qu est ion h er ein pr esen t ed is: Did Slon e su fficien t ly m eet h is bu r den u n der S trick lan d su ch t h a t