United States v. Abel Rangel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of a sentencing would change is enough to show prejudice
• rejecting a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction when the petitioner’s “sentence would have been the same even with a proper jury instruction”
• “Affecting substantial rights, in most cases, means that the error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the outcome of the district court proceeding. This outcome-based standard is similar to Strickland’s prejudice inquiry.” (cleaned up)
• finding Collins error, acknowledged by the government, on collateral review when district court 30 provided instruction on general conspiracy liability and the only reference to drug weight was for the jury to find “the amount you find that was involved as to [the conspiracy charge]”
• “[J]udiciary scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689)
• “[J]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).