Ramirez v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen his habeas proceeding, where: (1) defendant alleged in his habeas petition that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to defendant’s career-offender designation; (2) defendant’s post-conviction counsel failed to keep defendant apprised about status of post-conviction proceeding that in turn prevented defendant from filing timely appeal of denial of his habeas petition; and (3) Dist. Ct. wrongly believed in rigid rule that defendant had no right to counsel on collateral review. While there are not many circumstances that would allow defendant to bring Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen final decision in habeas proceeding, Dist. Ct.’s categorical denial of defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion without discussing how post-conviction counsel’s performance affected integrity of proceedings was in error, and defendant’s allegations in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion warranted granting of said motion. Ct. also observed that Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551 suggests that defendant’s counsel during sentencing hearing may have been ineffective in failing to object to defendant’s classification as career offender.