## Facts

- William Day was convicted after a jury trial of federal drug offenses, including conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.
- The Presentence Investigation Report treated Day as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, substantially increasing his guideline range.
- Day was sentenced to nearly twenty-two years’ imprisonment.
- Day filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence.
- Day alleged ineffective assistance during plea negotiations: counsel failed to explain potential career-offender status and advised that the maximum post-trial sentence was eleven years.
- Day alleged the government offered a plea agreement that would have resulted in a five-year sentence, which he rejected in reliance on counsel’s advice.
- Day also claimed (1) the sentencing court did not recognize its authority to depart downward and (2) the government failed to provide notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 regarding reliance on prior convictions.
- The district court summarily denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing and without requiring a government response.

## Issues

1. Whether Day’s § 2255 allegations that counsel grossly understated guideline exposure and failed to advise about career-offender status—causing rejection of a favorable plea—state a facially valid ineffective-assistance claim requiring an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether Day was entitled to § 2255 relief or a hearing based on the claim that the sentencing court failed to recognize its authority to depart downward.
3. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 851 required advance notice for application of the career-offender guideline and, if so, whether lack of notice warranted relief or a hearing.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court reversed the summary dismissal of the ineffective-assistance/plea-negotiations claim and remanded for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing unless the district court could conclude there was no reasonable probability it would have approved the alleged plea agreement.
- The court affirmed summary dismissal of the departure-authority claim.
- The court affirmed summary dismissal of the § 851 notice claim.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance of counsel can occur during plea negotiations, and prejudice may arise from deficient advice that leads a defendant to reject a favorable plea offer.
- Strickland v. Washington governs plea-stage ineffectiveness claims: the defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice.
- In the plea context, prejudice requires a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would have accepted the plea and the plea would have been consummated, including court approval where relevant.
- Grossly erroneous sentencing advice, including failure to advise about a realistic career-offender possibility, can constitute deficient performance.
- A district court may summarily deny a § 2255 motion only when the motion and record conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief; material factual disputes about plea advice and reliance generally require a hearing.
- Notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 applies to certain statutory sentence enhancements and does not necessarily apply to guideline-based enhancements such as career-offender classification.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Day’s § 2255 motion plausibly alleged ineffective assistance during plea bargaining based on materially incorrect advice about sentencing exposure and potential career-offender status, requiring a remand for a hearing unless the district court could determine the alleged plea would not reasonably have been approved; it otherwise upheld the summary denial of claims concerning departure authority and § 851 notice.


United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39 (3d Cir. 1992)