Legal Opinion
Ansel Allen v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 27, 1999No. 97-3329PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BAUER, Circuit Judge.
Ansel Allen (“Allen”) appeals from the district court’s partial denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that if he hadn’t been denied effective assistance of counsel, the sentencing judge would have found that his offense level was 34 rather than 36. Because, under Durrive v. United States, 4 F.3d 548 (7th Cir.1993), a difference of two offense levels does not meet the prejudice prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, Allen’s claim is not cognizable on collateral review. Therefore, we affirm.
I. Background
On June 7, 1989, a jury…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Richard Murphy v. Richard E. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Arlene Otis v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Alexander Durrive v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pope v. Secretary for the Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
- United States v. Ralph A. ScangaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Ervin J. Robinson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- Gravitt, Samuel v. Bezy, Mark A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- McCall v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.