183582P.pdf   06/12/2020  Ernest Haney  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  18-3582
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Stras, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Haney claimed counsel's alleged ineffectiveness at 
   sentencing deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; first, 
   Haney argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a two-level 
   decrease under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.1(b)(1), but that decrease is only 
   available to defendants who did not distribute child pornography and it is 
   undisputed that Haney did distribute the materials; since the decrease did 
   not apply, counsel was not ineffective in declining to advance the 
   argument; with respect to a claim that counsel performed ineffectively 
   when he failed to make arguments based on Haney's alleged ignorance that 
   his file-sharing program distributed child pornography, Haney, as part of 
   the plea, admitted this element of the offense and that he, and not 
   another family member, had installed the file-sharing software; in order 
   to pursue an objection under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F), counsel would 
   have had to deny these admissions, thus putting Haney's three-level 
   acceptance-of-responsibility at risk and possibly subjecting him to an 
   increase for obstruction of justice; in such a situation, counsel's 
   decision to withdraw his objection to a two-level distribution enhancement 
   was objectively reasonable and did not constitute ineffective assistance 
   of counsel.