The Richburg Clarification: Fifth Circuit Tightens the Pre-Judgment Standard for Showing Prejudice in Plea-Related Ineffective-Assistance Claims

Introduction

In United States v. Richburg, No. 24-30338 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed two pivotal questions that frequently arise in post-conviction litigation:

1. What level of specificity is required when a district court issues a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”)?
2. How does a federal prisoner establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when counsel’s error concerns an inaccurate sentencing-guideline estimate that influenced the decision to plead guilty?

The appellant, Mark Richburg, claimed that his attorney’s failure to calculate the correct guideline range (292–365 months versus an advised 192-month cap) rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Though the district court assumed deficient performance, it found no prejudice and denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255—but granted a COA. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, simultaneously upholding the COA’s validity and announcing a sharpened framework for assessing plea-stage prejudice where the alleged misinformation relates exclusively to sentencing exposure.

Summary of the Judgment

• COA Finding – The appellate panel held the district court’s COA was not defective because it pinpointed a single constitutional issue—ineffective assistance in estimating the guideline range—and expressly found it debatable among jurists of reason.
• Ineffective Assistance (Deficiency Assumed) – The court focused solely on prejudice and declined to revisit deficiency.
• Prejudice Standard Reaffirmed – Where the alleged error affects the decision to plead, the defendant must show a “reasonable probability” he would have insisted on going to trial but for counsel’s error (Hill/Lee). A mere post-hoc assertion is insufficient; contemporaneous objective evidence is required.
• Application – Richburg could not satisfy the standard because:
  • He acknowledged on the record a potential life sentence and disclaimed reliance on any promises;
  • The proof against him was strong, and rejecting the plea would have reinstated an additional § 924(c) firearm charge carrying a mandatory consecutive sentence;
  • No contemporaneous evidence showed the guideline calculation was “paramount” to his plea decision.
• Outcome – District court’s denial of § 2255 relief affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Strickland, Hill, and Lee
   

   The Fifth Circuit confirmed that, for plea-related IAC claims, the Hill/Lee formulation of prejudice controls: the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial. While the district court had imported the “significantly less harsh sentence” language from Grammas (appropriate for post-sentencing guideline errors), the appellate panel held the mislabeling harmless because Richburg could not win even under the correct Hill/Lee standard.

2. Lee v. United States Distinguished
   

   Richburg invoked Lee, where deportation consequences rendered counsel’s bad advice prejudicial. The panel deemed Lee “exceptional”: the defendant had no viable defense yet faced a consequence (mandatory removal) that was unquestionably dispositive to him and unknown until after the plea. By contrast, Richburg’s fear of receiving 24 years was speculative; he admitted knowledge of possible life imprisonment and chose the plea regardless.

3. COA Jurisprudence – Pierre & Castro
   

   The government argued the COA was invalid under Pierre, which vacated a vague COA that failed to specify issues. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, emphasizing the single-issue nature of Richburg’s application and the district court’s explicit reference to that issue, harmonizing COA practice with § 2253(c)(3).

4. Other Fifth Circuit Sentencing Error Cases – Valdez, Lincks
   

   These decisions consistently deny § 2255 relief where a defendant, despite guideline misadvice, acknowledges the statutory maxima during the plea colloquy. Richburg synthesizes these strands and re-affirms that plea-colloquy admonishments often cure guideline-calculation misadvice.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

The panel’s reasoning proceeded in two layers—first jurisdictional, then merits:

1. COA Sufficiency – By cross-referencing § 2253(c)(3)’s text, the court held that a COA need not restate the legal standard or enumerate Strickland factors when only one constitutional claim is at stake. Precision, not prolixity, is key.
2. Prejudice Analysis
   • The correct inquiry is whether the defendant would have gone to trial, not whether the sentence would have been different.
   • The court required objective contemporaneous evidence supporting the decision-to-trial counterfactual.
   • It weighed three specific factors drawn from Valdez: (a) prospects of success at trial (bleak); (b) post-plea statements/desire to withdraw (absent); and (c) plea-colloquy admonishments (explicit and curative).
   • Because Richburg faced stronger penalties at trial—including a § 924(c) count—and had admitted facts fatal to any viable defense, the court deemed the likelihood of rejecting the plea “implausible.”

Impact of the Judgment

Richburg is poised to influence federal habeas and criminal practice in several ways:

• Tightens Plea-Stage Prejudice Test. Defendants alleging guideline-miscalculation must now marshal contemporaneous evidence—emails, letters, plea negotiations, or sworn statements predating the plea—to escape dismissal.
• Affirms Curative Power of Rule 11 Colloquies. A thorough admonishment that max penalties may exceed guideline estimates heavily militates against a finding of prejudice.
• Guides District Courts on COA Drafting. The opinion clarifies that brevity can coexist with § 2253(c)(3) specificity, thereby deterring over-technical challenges to COAs.
• Defense Counsel’s Risk Management. While miscalculating guidelines still constitutes deficient performance, the decision signals that prejudice will be difficult to show unless the error fundamentally redefines a defendant’s risk calculus.
• Prosecutorial Leverage. By reaffirming the non-prejudicial nature of ordinary guideline miscalculations, the ruling strengthens the finality of plea agreements in the Fifth Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate of Appealability (COA)

A permission slip from a judge allowing a prisoner to appeal the denial of a habeas (or § 2255) petition. It must specify the constitutional issue that is debatable among jurists.

Strickland Deficiency & Prejudice

Deficiency – Lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Prejudice – The error affected the outcome. In plea settings, that means proving you would have gone to trial.

Guideline Range

Advisory sentencing range produced by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines based on offense level and criminal history. Courts may vary, but the range heavily informs sentencing predictions.

§ 924(c) Firearm Charge

Federal offense for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Carries a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence (commonly 5 years), making plea bargains valuable.

Contemporaneous Evidence

Evidence created at or near the time of the plea—letters, emails, negotiations—viewed by courts as more reliable than after-the-fact affidavits.

Conclusion

United States v. Richburg does not forge entirely new terrain; rather, it crystallizes existing Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent into a clear, defendant-facing directive: misadvice about guideline exposure—standing alone and contradicted by Rule 11 admonishments—rarely suffices to prove prejudice in the plea context. By demanding objective contemporaneous proof that a defendant would have risked trial, the Fifth Circuit has fortified the finality of guilty pleas and offered a practical roadmap for lower courts evaluating similar § 2255 claims. Defense counsel are reminded to document advice rigorously, and petitioners must now surmount a steeper evidentiary hill when alleging that a faulty guideline estimate undermined their plea.