## Facts

- Chua Han Mow, a Malaysian citizen, was charged in 1973 with others for violations of U.S. controlled-substance importation and distribution laws while he was in Malaysia.
- Malaysian authorities arrested and detained Chua from August 1975 to October 1977 under the Malaysian Emergency Ordinance of 1969.
- A superseding U.S. indictment was returned in November 1977 charging (1) conspiracy to import heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 963) and (2) distribution of heroin (21 U.S.C. § 959).
- Malaysian authorities arrested Chua again in December 1977; he remained incarcerated in Malaysia until extradited to the United States in November 1979.
- In April 1980, Chua withdrew his not-guilty plea and pled guilty to Counts I and III; Count II and a separate New York indictment were dismissed.
- The district court imposed consecutive 15-year sentences on Counts I and III (30 years total).
- Chua filed a notice of appeal but requested dismissal; later Rule 35 and multiple collateral attacks followed.
- In a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (filed in 1982), Chua alleged jurisdictional, constitutional, and procedural errors; the district court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether U.S. narcotics statutes could be constitutionally applied to a foreign national for conduct largely occurring abroad when the object was importation into the United States.
2. Whether the time between the initial charges, foreign custody, and extradition/prosecution violated constitutional protections (including speedy trial and due process) in a manner cognizable on § 2255 review.
3. Whether Chua’s guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under Rule 11, including alleged misunderstandings or promises about sentencing and appeal.
4. Whether Chua received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with plea negotiations and sentencing.
5. Whether the consecutive 30-year sentence, including disparity with co-defendants’ sentences, provided a basis for collateral relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief.
- The court held that U.S. jurisdiction was proper and the statutes reached the charged conduct because the conspiracy and substantive offenses targeted importation and distribution of heroin into the United States.
- The court rejected constitutional claims based on delay, emphasizing Chua’s foreign incarceration and the time required for extradition, and noting the limiting effect of a subsequent guilty plea on non-jurisdictional pre-plea claims.
- The court found the guilty plea valid under the plea-hearing record and concluded post hoc assertions of expectations or off-the-record understandings did not establish a constitutional defect.
- The court found no ineffective assistance because Chua failed to show deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
- The court held the sentence was within statutory limits and not subject to § 2255 relief absent an independent constitutional violation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal narcotics statutes with express or clear congressional intent to reach foreign conduct may be applied to foreign nationals acting abroad when the conduct is directed at importation or distribution of controlled substances in the United States.
- A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea generally bars collateral litigation of most non-jurisdictional defects predating the plea; § 2255 relief requires a fundamental constitutional or jurisdictional error.
- Ineffective assistance claims in the plea context require proof of objectively unreasonable performance and prejudice, including a showing that the defendant would have rejected the plea and proceeded differently absent the alleged errors.
- A sentence within statutory bounds is generally not cognizable on § 2255 as a length/disparity challenge unless it independently violates the Constitution.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction and consecutive 30-year sentence on collateral review, concluding that extraterritorial application of the drug statutes was proper and that Chua failed to show constitutionally significant error in the timing of prosecution, the validity of his guilty plea, counsel’s performance, or the sentence imposed.


Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308 (9th Cir. 1984)