FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 2, 2010
PUBLISH

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.

No. 09-6069

DENNIS EMERSON GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 5:CR-04-00179-R-1/5:CV-08-01182-R)

William P. Earley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,

for Defendant-Appellant.
Leslie M. Maye, Assistant United States Attorney (Robert J. Troester, Acting
United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, SEYMOUR, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Dennis Gonzalez, currently serving a thirty-year sentence in

connection with multiple drug-trafficking convictions arising out of his role in an
Oklahoma City-based methamphetamine distribution operation, appeals from the

district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291, we affirm
the judgment of the district court and deny Gonzalezs request for a certificate of
appealability on additional issues.
I
Factual and procedural history
The underlying factual and procedural history of Gonzalezs case was
outlined by this court on direct appeal:
After his arrest in the summer of 2003, Jason Joker Lujan
cooperated with an Oklahoma City Police Department narcotics
investigation. Mr. Lujan told the police that, beginning in early
2002, several members of a Hispanic gang from California, later
identified as the Compton Varrio Tortilla Flats, moved to Oklahoma
City to set up a methamphetamine-dealing operation. Mr. Lujan
explained to the police that the members of the group included
Boxer, one of his confederates later identified as Mr. Gonzalez,
who ran the operation from Florida; Lalo, later identified as
Eduardo Verduzco, who delivered the drugs to Oklahoma City at Mr.
Gonzalezs direction; and Jennifer Lujan, his sister-in-law, who
distributed the methamphetamine in Oklahoma City with the
assistance of Mr. Gonzalezs girlfriend Mousey, later identified as
Maria Ginez. With Mr. Lujans assistance, the police eventually
seized over 2,800 grams of methamphetamine from participants in
the drug ring and obtained indictments against twelve participants,
including Mr. Gonzalez. Most of the defendants pled guilty and
cooperated with the government. Along with two associates, Mr.
Gonzalezaccused of being the groups ringleaderpled not guilty
and proceeded to trial.
In his opening statement before the jury, counsel for Mr.
Gonzalez, Charles Kilgore, denied Mr. Gonzalezs involvement in
any kind of drug conspiracy. Tr. of Opening Stmt. at 27. The
government, however, proceeded to present substantial evidence of
2

Mr. Gonzalezs guilt from more than a dozen cooperating witnesses,

as well as 16 law enforcement officers, agents, and employees. The
evidence at trial adduced that Mr. Gonzalez left Oklahoma for
Florida in February 2003, after one of the members of the drug
organization was arrested. According to testimony presented, Mr.
Gonzalez continued to direct from Florida the
California-to-Oklahoma drug operation, and, after his move,
proceeds of various drug transactions were wired to Florida.
Responding to the proof presented by the government, Mr.
Kilgore took a different tack in closing, admitting Mr. Gonzalezs
involvement in the drug conspiracy but seeking to diminish it by
suggesting that he participated only until February 2003, when he
moved to Florida, and that Mr. Verduzco was the true ringleader.
Thus, for example, Mr. Kilgore told the jury that Im not going to
ask you to find [Mr. Gonzalez] not guilty on all of those counts,
because if I did, I think youd probably tune me out from the very
beginning and just go somewhere else. Tr. of Closing Arg. (vol. 4)
at 30-31. Likewise, Mr. Kilgore stated that Mr. Gonzalezs
involvement stopped in February of 2003, id. at 34, and that Mr.
Gonzales [sic] was a lieutenant . . . working for Lalo, id. at 35.
And when discussing the particular counts charged, Mr. Kilgore
submitted, for example, that now, Count 1 is the conspiracy . . . .
Well submit . . . . Dennis [Gonzalez] was involved . . . . He wasnt
the head, but he was involved. But I will argue that he was only
involved . . . until he took off to Florida. Id. at 67.
After Mr. Kilgores closing argument, the district court asked Mr.
Kilgore if it should issue a conspiracy-withdrawal instruction to the
jury. Id. at 75; see Docket Entry No. 382 (instruction titled
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM A
CONSPIRACY). The government agreed with the district court that
such an instruction was appropriate. After reviewing the proposed
instruction overnight, however, Mr. Kilgore declined the instruction,
and the government did not request it. Tr. of Closing Arg. (vol. 4) at
106. The district court then generally instructed the jury, including
an instruction indicating the vicarious liability of co-conspirators for
the actions of others in the drug ring. See Docket Entry No. 382
(instruction titled VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF
CO-CONSPIRATORS). Though there is no mention of it in the
record before us, the parties briefs represent that the district court
3

also sought and held additional meetings in chambers to discuss

questions submitted by the jury. Apparently, either during or shortly
after one of these conferences, the district court made some type of
inquiry to Mr. Kilgore regarding whether his client had agreed to his
change in tactics and concession of guilt. No transcript of the
meeting seems to exist but the government represents that Mr.
Kilgore said he altered his trial tactics with Mr. Gonzalezs
permission. Mr. Gonzalez stresses that there is no indication in the
record to confirm the accuracy of this representation and denies that
he was ever informed of the pertinent chambers meeting or that he
waived his right to be present during this proceeding.
Ultimately, [on July 25, 2005,] the jury found Mr. Gonzalez
guilty of 63 of the 65 counts with which he was charged and, by
means of a special verdict form, indicated that Mr. Gonzalezs
conspiracy involved more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. See
Docket Entry No. 385.
At sentencing [on November 21, 2005], the district court began
its analysis with the advisory Guidelines suggested sentencing range
of ten years to life in prison and then proceeded to review the various
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a); the ultimate upshot: Mr.
Gonzalez was sentenced to 30 years on each of 12 separate counts; 5
years each on 2 separate counts; 20 years each on 48 separate counts;
and 30 years on a single remaining count at issue in this appeal. The
district court indicated that its sentences would run concurrently, for
a total of 30 years imprisonment.
United States v. Gonzalez, 238 F. Appx 350, 351-53 (10th Cir. 2007) (footnotes
omitted).
Gonzalezs direct appeal
Gonzalez filed a direct appeal asserting two claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel, as well as a separate claim that his sentence on Count 29, for
conspiracy to commit money laundering, was in violation of law. This court, in
an unpublished order and judgment issued on June 25, 2007, deferred the
4

ineffective assistance claims to collateral proceedings, found merit to Gonzalezs

sentencing challenge, and remanded for resentencing. On August 6, 2007, the
district court, in accordance with this courts mandate, issued an order amending
the judgment to reflect a sentence of twenty years imprisonment on Count 29, to
run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the other counts of conviction.
Gonzalezs 2255 motion
On August 31, 2007, Gonzalez filed a pro se motion asking that counsel be
appointed to represent him in connection with the filing of a motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2255. ROA, Vol. 1 at 336. The district court granted Gonzalezs
motion on September 11, 2007.
On November 4, 2008, Gonzalez, through appointed counsel, filed a 2255
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Gonzalezs motion asserted five
grounds for relief: (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
investigate and call two witnesses, Marlene Gonzalez and Eduardo Verduzco, to
support the theory of defense at trial, i.e., that Gonzalez withdrew from the
charged conspiracy in February 2003 when he moved to Florida; (2) that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to accept the trial courts proposed jury
instruction on the defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy; (3) that his trial
counsels closing argument concession that Gonzalez was guilty of conspiracy
caused a breakdown in the adversarial process and violated Gonzalezs
constitutional rights; (4) that Gonzalezs absence from an in-chambers conference
5

during which counsel and the trial court discussed whether Gonzalez consented to
his trial counsels concession of partial guilt to the conspiracy charge violated his
right to be present under Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and
the Due Process Clause; and (5) cumulative error.
The district court, after allowing the parties to fully brief the issues raised
by Gonzalez, issued an order on February 25, 2009, denying Gonzalezs motion in
its entirety. Final judgment was entered that same day.
Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 2009. On March 30, 2009,
Gonzalez filed a request for a certificate of appealability (COA) on the five
substantive issues asserted in his 2255 motion, as well as a sixth issue of
whether the district court erred in denying his 2255 motion without first
conducting an evidentiary hearing. On April 2, 2009, the district court issued an
order granting Gonzalez a COA with respect to the second and third substantive
issues asserted in his 2255 motion, and denying his request for COA on the
other four issues.
Gonzalez has now filed an appellate brief addressing the two issues on
which the district court granted a COA. Gonzalez also requests that we grant him
a COA with respect to the other four issues identified in the motion for COA he
filed with the district court.
II
A) Issues on which the district court granted COA
6

As noted, the district court granted COA on two of the substantive issues
identified in Gonzalezs 2255 motion. In considering those two issues on
appeal, [w]e review the district courts legal rulings . . . de novo and its findings
of fact for clear error. United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 796 (10th Cir.
2006).
1. Trial counsels failure to accept proposed instruction on withdrawal
Gonzalez argues that his [t]rial counsels failure to accept the [trial]
courts proposed jury instruction on the defense of withdrawal from the
conspiracy fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced
[him]. Aplt. Br. at 21. According to Gonzalez, [w]ithdrawal from the
conspiracy was the only viable defense and refusing the instruction left the jury
no choice but to convict on all counts. Id. Further, Gonzalez argues, [t]his
error was aggravated by the fact trial counsel conceded guilt to the conspiracy
charges in his closing argument, which [b]y law . . . amounted to a concession
of guilt on every count alleged. Id. Gonzalez asserts that [t]he result was a
breakdown in the adversarial process and a corresponding violation of [his] right
to the assistance of counsel and due process of law. Id. at 21-22. Gonzalez also
argues he was prejudiced by trial counsels conduct in this regard because [i]f
the jury would have heard evidence of and been instructed on withdrawal from the
conspiracy and returned a verdict in conformity with that theory, the factual basis
for [the trial courts] application of the weapon enhancement and role in the
7

offense adjustment would be undermined, Aplt. Br. at 20, and the total offense
level could have been reduced to as low as 35 resulting in a guideline range of
imprisonment of 168 to 210 months, the minimum of which is less than one half
of [his] current sentence. Id. at 20-21.
A claim for ineffective of assistance of counsel presents a mixed question
of fact and law, which we review de novo. Orange, 447 F.3d at 796. To
establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must
demonstrate: (1) that his trial counsel was deficient such that he was deprived of
reasonably effective assistance; and (2) that counsels deficient performance
prejudiced his case, meaning that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsels unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984). It is
permissible for a reviewing court, if it so chooses, to proceed directly to the
prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis. Id. at 697 (If it is easier to dispose of
an effectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we
expect will often be so, that course should be followed.); see Romano v. Gibson,
239 F.3d 1156, 1181 (10th Cir. 2001) (This court can affirm the denial of habeas
relief on whichever Strickland prong is easier to resolve.).
The district court rejected Gonzalezs claim of ineffective assistance,
stating:
Defendants claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective
8

assistance by failing to accept the Courts proposed instruction (or

any instruction) on the defense of withdrawal from a conspiracy is
without merit. By refusing the instruction, Defendants counsel was
able to argue Defendants withdrawal from the conspiracy without
having to prove the legal requirements for that defense, of which
there was no evidence. To have established the affirmative partial
defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy charged in Count 1,
and/or Count 29, Defendant would have had to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that he took some definite, decisive
and affirmative action to disavow the conspiracy or to defeat the
purpose or goal of the conspiracy, either by reporting to the
authorities or by communicating his intentions to his coconspirators.
Courts Proposed Affirmative Defense of Withdrawal from a
Conspiracy. See United States v. Parnell, 581 F.2s [sic] 1374, 1384
(10th Cir. 1978). See also Tenth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury
Instructions 2.22.
By rejecting the withdrawal instruction, Defendants counsel
avoided having to place his client on the stand to attempt to prove the
defense, prevented the Government from countering the defense in its
case-in-chief or otherwise and hoped to persuade the jury in closing
argument that Defendant should not be convicted of any offenses
committed by his coconspirators after Defendant moved to Florida,
without having to prove the defense of withdrawal. In short,
Defendants trial counsel sought jury nullification of the Courts
instruction on Vicarious Liability of Co-Conspirators for offenses
committed by coconspirators after Defendant moved to Florida.
Defendants trial counsels rejection of an instruction on withdrawal
was clearly trial strategy. In any event, Defendant cannot show that
he was prejudiced by his counsels refusal to accept a withdrawal
instruction because in view of the fact that there was no proof at trial
of the necessary legal requirements for withdrawal, see above, there
is no reasonable probability that the jury would have found that
Defendant withdrew from the conspiracy charged in Count 1 and/or
Count 29 when he moved to Florida in February of 2003 and
acquitted him of the substantive counts committed thereafter by his
coconspirators in furtherance of that conspiracy.
ROA, Vol. 1 at 458-59.
In his appellate brief, Gonzalez offers five reasons why the district courts
9

ruling was erroneous. First, Gonzalez asserts that, contrary to the conclusion
reached by the district court, [e]vidence was adduced at trial that supported the
theory that . . . Gonzalez was no longer involved in the conspiracy after February
2003. Aplt. Br. at 24. In support of this assertion, Gonzalez cites to, but does
not otherwise detail, testimony contained on fifteen pages of the nearly twothousand page trial transcript. Id.
In addressing this argument, we note, as did the district court, that [t]he
defense of termination by withdrawal requires that the defendant show that he or
she has done some act to disavow or defeat the purpose of the conspiracy.
United States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811, 817-18 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Hyde v.
United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369 (1912)). Affirmative acts inconsistent with the
object of the conspiracy and communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to
reach co-conspirators have generally been regarded as sufficient to establish
withdrawal . . . . United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464-65
(1978). With these legal requirements in mind, we conclude, having examined
the cited testimony, as well as the entire trial transcript, that the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to have allowed the jury to reasonably find that
Gonzalez withdrew from the conspiracy. In particular, we reject, for the reasons
outlined below, each of the portions of testimony cited by Gonzalez:
Transcript pages 651-52. These pages contain the cross-examination
testimony of co-defendant Jennifer Lujan. Ms. Lujan testified for the government
10

on direct examination that she was a major distributor of methamphetamine

during the years 2002 and 2003, and that Gonzalez was her main supplier during
that time period. On the transcript pages now cited by Gonzalez, Ms. Lujan
conceded that a photograph shown to her by Gonzalezs trial counsel was taken in
September 2003 at a fair in Oklahoma City, and that Gonzalez wasnt there . . .
. ROA, Vol. 7 at 652. Although Ms. Lujans testimony in this regard perhaps
implicitly confirms that Gonzalez was not present in Oklahoma City in September
2003, it says nothing about Gonzalezs involvement in, or withdrawal from, the
charged conspiracy.
Transcript page 795. Alex Figueroa, who went by the street name of
Toker, testified for the government that he met Boxer in 1991 in Southern
California when each of them were members of different street gangs. Figueroa
testified that he personally moved to Oklahoma City in early 2002, and that
Gonzalez moved to Oklahoma City and began living with him in March or April
of 2002. According to Figueroa, Gonzalez used at least two people, i.e., Vago
and Japo, to transport methamphetamine from California to Oklahoma City, and
that, in turn, Gonzalez used a group of other people, including Jennifer Lujan, Liz
Campos, and himself (Figueroa), to distribute the methamphetamine. On page
795 of the trial transcript, Figueroa testified on direct examination that he was
arrested in February 2003, had remained incarcerated since that time, had not
talked to Gonzalez after his arrest, and was not aware of whether or not Gonzalez
11

stayed in Oklahoma City after Figueroas arrest. Nothing about this testimony
would have remotely allowed the jury to find that Gonzalez withdrew from the
charged conspiracy.
Transcript pages 1175-76. Rafael Gamboa, who went by the street name
of Crook, testified at length on behalf of the government regarding Gonzalezs
drug-trafficking activities. Gamboa testified at the outset that he had known
Gonzalez all of his life and that the two of them were members of the Compton
Varrio Tortilla Flats gang. Gamboa testified that in late 2002, he spoke with
Gonzalez by telephone and agreed to become a partner in Gonzalezs Oklahoma
City drug business. Following that conversation, Gamboa testified, he moved to
Oklahoma City and became involved in the distribution of narcotics. Gamboa
described, in detail, how Gonzalez obtained and in turn distributed drugs.
Gamboa testified that when Gonzalez first left Oklahoma City and moved to
Florida, everything was falling apart, which is why Gonzalez wanted Gamboa
to help out in Oklahoma City. ROA, Vol. 9 at 1083. On the transcript pages
cited by Gonzalez, Gamboa testified on cross-examination that he personally
escorted a load of methamphetamine from California to Oklahoma City in
February or March 2003, and did not escort any other loads after that time. This
testimony, considered either alone or collectively with the rest of Gamboas
testimony, is far from sufficient to have allowed the jury to find that Gonzalez
withdrew from the charged conspiracy.
12

 Transcript page 1354. Maria Ginez, a co-defendant in this case,

testified on behalf of the government against Gonzalez. Ginez explained at the
outset that she had pled guilty to renting an apartment for use by conspiracy
members Eduardo Verduzco and Elizabeth Serrano, and for laundering drug
proceedings by way of Western Union wire transfers. Ginez also testified that she
had a personal relationship with Gonzalez and that he was the father of her child.
According to Ginez, she lived with Gonzalez in Miami and, while there, Gonzalez
would take her to Western Union offices to pick up wire transfers of money from
Oklahoma City. On trial transcript page 1354, Ginez testified that [a]fter [she]
got arrested, [she] didnt join [Gonzalez] in Miami anymore, but that, prior to
her arrest, she also lived with Gonzalez in Washington, D.C. ROA, Vol. 10 at
1354. We see nothing in this cited testimony that would have supported a finding
by the jury that Gonzalez withdrew from the conspiracy.
Transcript page 1427. Mark Danner, an Oklahoma City Police
Department officer assigned to work with a Drug Enforcement Administration
task force, testified during the governments case-in-chief that he participated in
the October 24, 2003 search of Maria Ginezs apartment in Oklahoma City, and
he identified various items seized from Ginezs apartment that linked Ginez to
Gonzalez. On the transcript page cited by Gonzalez in his appellate brief, Danner
testified, on cross-examination, that Gonzalez left Oklahoma City on
approximately February 28, 2003, and that their investigation had not identified
13

any money or accounts held by Gonzalez in Florida, California, or the

Washington, D.C. area, where Gonzalez moved after living in Florida. Although
Danners testimony in this regard lends marginal support to Gonzalezs
withdrawal theory, it is clearly insufficient, by itself, to fully establish the
defense. More specifically, Danners testimony does not establish either that
Gonzalez completely withdrew from the conspiracy or that Gonzalez took some
affirmative step to renounce or defeat the purpose of the conspiracy. E.g., United
States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915, 916-17 (10th Cir. 1986).
Transcript pages 1444-45. On these two cited transcript pages, Danner
testified, on cross-examination, that the investigating law enforcement officers
performed no wire taps during the time period from February 28, 2003, until
October 28, 2003, because, at that time, they [d]idnt even know that the
organization existed for most of that time period. ROA, Vol. 10 at 1444-45.
Importantly, the governments other testimony overwhelmingly established that
the conspiracy did, in fact, continue between February and October 2003. Thus,
as with the other Danner testimony discussed above, this testimony neither
establishes that Gonzalez completely withdrew from the conspiracy nor took some
affirmative step to renounce or defeat the purpose of the conspiracy.
Transcript page 1560. Elizabeth Serrano, another co-defendant in the
case, pled guilty to money laundering and one additional count, and agreed to
testify on behalf of the government. Serrano testified that she and Eduardo
14

Verduzco (aka Lalo) first arrived in Oklahoma City in June or July 2003 while en
route to Miami to visit Gonzalez. Serrano testified that she and Lalo stayed with
Gonzalez in Florida for approximately one month, during which time Lalo and
Gonzalez discussed using different names and obtaining false identification cards
for those names. Serrano admitted that Lalo and Gonzalez were partners in
selling drugs. According to Serrano, she and Lalo left Miami and began living in
Oklahoma City in August of 2003. Thereafter, Serrano testified, Lalo engaged in
the distribution of methamphetamine in Oklahoma City, and regularly conducted
telephone conversations with Gonzalez. On the transcript page cited by
Gonzalez, Serrano identified, on cross-examination, an exhibit memorializing a
wire transfer to her on February 24, 2003 in the amount of $999. ROA, Vol. 11 at
1560. Clearly, this testimony does not support Gonzalezs withdrawal defense.
Transcript pages 1695-99. Bob Summers, a special agent with the
Internal Revenue Services Criminal Investigation Division, became involved in
the investigation of the conspiracy in December 2003, and tracked the pattern of
wire transfers from Western Union locations in Oklahoma to Western Union
locations in California and Florida. On the transcript pages cited by Gonzalez in
his appellate brief, Summers testified on cross-examination that the majority of
the wire transfer money (totaling approximately $245,000) went to California,
that records indicate Jennifer Lujan wire-transferred money to Florida after
Gonzalez moved there, that it was possible that Gonzalez made money as a tattoo
15

artist but didnt report it to the IRS, and that it would not be unusual for a person
on the run from law enforcement officers to fail to file a federal tax return
(Gonzalez did not file a federal tax return for the tax year 2003). Notably,
Gonzalez makes no attempt to explain how any of this evidence would have
supported his withdrawal defense, and we conclude none of it would have allowed
the jury to reasonably find the necessary elements of withdrawal.
Thus, in sum, we agree with the district court that the evidence presented at
trial was insufficient to allow the jury to reasonably find that Gonzalez withdrew
from the conspiracy.
Gonzalez next argues, relatedly, that [t]he district courts holding on post
conviction [that] there was no evidence to support a withdrawal from the
conspiracy instruction is contrary to the courts view at the time of trial. Aplt.
Br. at 25. Gonzalez is, however, mistaken in this regard. A review of the trial
transcript indicates that the district court suggested the possibility of a withdrawal
from conspiracy instruction only after hearing the closing arguments of
Gonzalezs counsel. In those closing arguments, Gonzalezs counsel asserted that
Gonzalez, after leaving Oklahoma City in February 2003, was unaware of what
was happening regarding methamphetamine trafficking in Oklahoma City, and
that Eduardo Verduzco was the person responsible for running the conspiracy.
Importantly, at no time during the trial proceedings did the district court rule on
whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow the jury to find that
16

Gonzalez in fact withdrew from the conspiracy. Moreover, a defense counsels

closing argument suggesting withdrawal, in the absence of supporting evidence,
provides no basis for a jury to find withdrawal. 1 See United States v. Atencio,
435 F.3d 1222, 1237 (10th Cir. 2006) (characterizing as standard an instruction
emphasizing that any statements, objections, or arguments made by the lawyers
are not evidence.).
In his third argument, Gonzalez argues that, contrary to the district courts
holding, accepting the withdrawal from conspiracy instruction could not have
altered the governments case in chief, the governments examination of
witnesses, or Mr. Gonzalezs decision not to testify. Aplt. Br. at 25. Although
Gonzalez is correct, that does not alter the fact that the evidence presented at trial
was insufficient to allow the jury to reasonably find that Gonzalez withdrew from
the conspiracy.
In his fourth argument, Gonzalez challenges as flawed [t]he district
courts conclusion that rejecting the instruction was clearly trial strategy
because trial counsel sought jury nullification of the Courts Instruction on
Vicarious Liability of Co-Conspirators for offenses committed by coconspirators
after [Gonzalez] moved to Florida . . . . Aplt. Br. at 25 (quoting ROA, Vol. 1 at
459). According to Gonzalez, [i]t is not trial strategy to seek jury nullification
1

The district court recognized this principle when it instructed the jury that
[s]tatements and arguments of counsel are not evidence in the case. ROA, Vol.
1 at 183.
17

because it is improper for counsel to promote such a result. Id.

Although the legal premise of Gonzalezs argument is correct, in that we
disapprove of the encouragement of jury nullification, e.g., United States v.
Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102, 106 (11th Cir. 1983) (While we recognize that a jury may
render a verdict at odds with the evidence or the law, neither the court nor
counsel should encourage jurors to violate their oath.), we disagree with the
factual premise of his argument. More specifically, we are not persuaded, after
reviewing the record on appeal, that Gonzalezs trial counsel was encouraging
jury nullification. Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented by the
government, Gonzalezs trial counsel was quite limited in what he could argue to
the jury, and obviously realized that Gonzalez could not, based upon the available
evidence, satisfy the legal requirements of the withdrawal defense. As the district
court concluded, trial counsels best strategic choice, indeed perhaps his only
choice, was to argue that Gonzalez no longer had any involvement with the
conspiracy after he moved to Florida, but without specifically arguing the legal
requirements of a withdrawal defense. In other words, trial counsel, rather than
taking on the insurmountable burden of establishing the legal defense of
withdrawal, simply attempted to put the government to its burden of proof by
relying on the district courts general instructions on conspiracy and arguing that
he was no longer part of the conspiracy after a certain date. Although Gonzalez
now takes issue with this strategy, he fails to point to any evidence from which
18

the jury could reasonably have found the existence of the legal requirements of
the withdrawal defense.
Finally, and relatedly, Gonzalez argues that his counsels refusal to accept
the instruction prevented the jury from deliberating whether Gonzalez remained
criminally responsible for the post-February 2003 actions of his coconspirators
and deprived [him] of the opportunity to present the only possible defense under
the law and facts. Aplt. Br. at 27. Although we agree that trial counsels
rejection of the withdrawal instruction prevented the jury from considering the
legal elements of the withdrawal defense, we readily conclude that Gonzalez was
not prejudiced as a result thereof, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt
and the complete lack of evidence that he withdrew from the conspiracy or took
some affirmative step to renounce or defeat the purpose of the conspiracy.
In conclusion, we agree with the district court that Gonzalez failed to
establish that his counsels rejection of the district courts proffered withdrawal
instruction deprived him of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of
counsel.
2. Trial counsels concession of Gonzalezs guilt
In the second issue on which the district court granted a COA, Gonzalez
argues that his trial counsels concession of guilt to the conspiracy charge, a
count that encompassed every other count in the indictment, effectively caused
a breakdown in the adversarial process and, correspondingly, violated [his] right
19

to the assistance of counsel. Aplt. Br. at 29. In addition, Gonzalez argues, his
counsels concession of guilt relieved the government of its burden of proving
[him] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating [his] right to due
process of law. Id.
a. Right to assistance of counsel
In United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), the United States Supreme
Court recognized a limited exception to Strickland, Crawley v. Dinwiddie, 584
F.3d 916, 922 n.8 (10th Cir. 2009), by holding that if counsel entirely fails to
subject the prosecutions case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has
been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself
presumptively unreliable. 466 U.S. at 659. In other words, Cronic held that a
Sixth Amendment violation may be found without inquiring into counsels actual
performance or requiring the defendant to show the effect it had on the trial, when
circumstances [exist] that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of
litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified . . . . Wright v. Van
Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 124 (2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted; brackets in original). Importantly, the Court has since made
clear that . . . the attorneys failure [to subject the prosecutions case to
meaningful adversarial testing] must be complete. Id. at n.* (quoting Bell v.
Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002)). Thus, although we have held that the
admission by counsel of his clients guilt to the jury . . . represents a paradigmatic
20

example of the sort of breakdown in the adversarial process that triggers a

presumption of prejudice under Cronic, United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d
1500, 1511 (10th Cir. 1995), it is clear that, in order to implicate the Cronic
presumption, any such admission by counsel must be complete. E.g., Hale v.
Gibson, 227 F.3d 1298, 1323 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that Cronic was not
implicated where defense counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to
concede some guilt by [petitioner], given the overwhelming evidence presented at
trial, and focused on the extent of [petitioners] involvement and whether others
could have been involved.); Trice v. Ward, 196 F.3d 1151, 1161-62 (10th Cir.
1999) (same). We have found a complete absence of meaningful adversarial
testing only where the evidence overwhelmingly established that [the] attorney
abandoned the required duty of loyalty to his client, and where counsel acted with
reckless disregard for his clients best interests and, at times, apparently with the
intention to weaken his clients case. Turrentine v. Mullin, 390 F.3d 1181, 1208
(10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted; brackets in original).
Whether a complete admission of guilt actually occurred is necessarily
fact-intensive. Williamson, 53 F.3d at 1511. The focus must be on whether, in
light of the entire record, the attorney remained a legal advocate of the defendant
who acted with undivided allegiance and faithful, devoted service to the
defendant. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court in this case properly acknowledged these principles, and
21

in turn concluded
that the Cronic presumption of prejudice d[id] not apply, that
Defendants trial counsels concession of Defendants guilt of Count
1, at least up to the point he moved to Florida, was reasonable trial
strategy in light of overwhelming evidence of Defendants guilt as to
Count 1. Defendants counsel was present in the courtroom,
conducted cross-examination, made evidentiary objections and gave
opening and closing arguments. Hence, Defendants counsel did not
abandon his duty of loyalty to Defendant or act in reckless disregard
of his clients best interest, triggering the Cronic presumption.
Moreover, Defendants counsels concession of Defendants guilt on
Count 1 at least until, as counsel argued, Defendant moved to
Florida, in light of overwhelming evidence of Defendants
membership and participation in the conspiracy, so as to gain
credibility with the jury and attempt to persuade them Defendant was
not guilty of at least some of the substantive offenses, particularly
those that occurred after February of 2003, was reasonable trial
strategy.
ROA, Vol. 1 at 463-64.
Gonzalez argues that the district courts conclusion was erroneous because,
in light of the jury instructions, particularly one discussing the vicarious liability
of coconspirators, defense counsels concession that Mr. Gonzalez was guilty of
conspiracy, the overarching and most serious charge in the indictment, had the
practical effect of denying Mr. Gonzalez his right to a jury determination, on all
of the counts in the indictment. 2 Aplt. Br. at 32. We disagree.
2

Gonzalez also argues that [a]ny possibility the jury might reach a
different conclusion was destroyed when [defense counsel] declined the Courts
offer to instruct the jury on his only defense, and [i]f the jury had been
instructed on the defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy, there would have
been a possibility of [him] being acquitted on the counts involving conduct that
occurred after he moved to Florida in February 2003. Aplt. Br. at 32. For the
(continued...)
22

To be sure, the district court instructed the jury that [e]very conspirator is
guilty of the illegal acts that are done as part of and in furtherance of the
conspiracy even though those acts are done solely by coconspirators. ROA, Vol.
1 at 249. There was more, however, to the vicarious liability instruction. In
particular, that instruction stated:
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time an
alleged offense was committed, a Defendant had entered into and
continued to be a member of an unlawful conspiracy as charged in
Count 1 and as I have defined that for you and if you further find
beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged acts charged in any of
Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29
and 30 through 79 were committed while the conspiracy continued to
exist and in furtherance of that unlawful conspiracy or as an object of
that conspiracy, then you may find that Defendant guilty of the
offense or offenses charged in such count or counts even though he
was not the person who actually committed or personally aided and
abetted in the commission of that offense or those offenses.
Id. (emphasis added). 3
Gonzalezs trial counsel obviously attempted to take advantage of the
highlighted phrase in the vicarious liability instruction by arguing that Gonzalez
was merely a lieutenant in the conspiracy, ROA, Vol. 16 at 35, that Lalo
(Eduardo Verduzco) was the one actually in charge of the conspiracy, id., that

(...continued)
reasons already discussed above, these arguments have no merit.
3

The district court also instructed the jury that [e]ach crime or offense as
charged and the evidence applicable thereto, should be considered separately, and
the guilt or innocence of a Defendant as to each count or offense should likewise
be considered separately. ROA, Vol. 1 at 232.
23

Gonzalez ceased to be a member of the conspiracy after he moved to Florida in

February of 2003, id. at 70 (Once Boxer [Gonzalez] leaves Oklahoma, Lalo
[Verduzco] is not keeping him up to speed on the day-to-day business. Boxer
[Gonzalez] doesnt know whats going on in Oklahoma.), and that, necessarily,
Gonzalez was not responsible for any of the substantive offenses that occurred
after February of 2003. In other words, as the district court concluded,
Gonzalezs counsel clearly attempted, by way of his cross-examination of the
governments witnesses and his closing arguments, to challenge Gonzalezs guilt
on the post-February 2003 substantive counts, and did not, as asserted by
Gonzalez, effectively concede Gonzalezs guilt on those counts.
Gonzalez also complains, in passing, that his trial counsels opening
statement, which denied guilt as to any of the charges, was inconsistent with trial
counsels closing arguments (which, as noted, conceded guilt to the conspiracy
charge). Aplt. Br. at 32-33. For the reasons already discussed, however, we
conclude this inconsistency does nothing to bolster his Cronic claim.
b. Due process
Gonzalez also argued that his trial counsels concession of guilt to the
conspiracy charge, during closing arguments, violated his due process rights by
relieving the government of its burden of proof. The district court rejected this
argument, stating:
Whether Defendants counsels concession of his clients guilt as
24

to Count 1 amounted to a violation of the Due Process Clause is

determined by the standards set forth above [i.e., Strickland and
Cronic]. See United States v. Swanson, 943 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th
Cir. 1991). It is only when a defense attorney concedes that there is
no reasonable doubt concerning the only factual issues in dispute,
[that] the Government has not been held to its burden of persuading
the jury that the defendant is guilty. Id. That is not what occurred
here and the disposition of Defendants claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, based on his
concession of Defendants guilt of Count 1, governs the disposition
of that claim under the Due Process Clause.
ROA, Vol. 1 at 465.
On appeal, Gonzalez does not specifically challenge the district courts
ruling. Instead, he argues simply that his counsels concession of guilt on the
conspiracy charges amounted to a concession of guilt on all charges pursuant to
the vicarious liability principles governing conspiracy, and thereby relieved the
government of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Aplt. Br. at
34.
As the district court noted, however, the disposition of Gonzalezs Cronic
claim also effectively disposes of his due process claim. More specifically,
because the record indicates that Gonzalezs trial counsel challenged Gonzalezs
guilt on the post-February 2003 substantive counts, it is apparent that the
government was not wholly relieved of its burden of proof.
B. Issues on which Gonzalez seeks a COA
Gonzalez seeks a COA on four additional issues. The issuance of a COA is
a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from the denial of an issue raised in a
25

2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A COA may be
issued only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2553(c)(2). To make such a showing, an
applicant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the [particular issue raised in the] petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issue[] presented w[as] adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
1. Trial counsels failure to investigate and present evidence
In the first issue on which he seeks a COA, Gonzalez contends that his trial
counsel failed to investigate and call at trial Marlene Gonzalez (his ex-wife) and
Eduardo Verduzco, both of whom Gonzalez asserts would have testified in
support of his defense theory of withdrawal from the conspiracy. Gonzalez
argues that if the jury had been persuaded that he withdrew from the conspiracy in
February 2003, his advisory guideline range of punishment would have been
reduced by half.
The district court concluded that trial counsels failure to call these two
witnesses was not prejudicial:
The Court agrees with the Government that the testimony of
Defendants ex-wife, as proffered by defense counsel, would not
have assisted or had any real impact on Defendants theory of
defense that he withdrew from the conspiracy in February of 2003.
While the testimony of Edward Verduzco, had he been called as a
26

witness, as set forth in the Declaration of Eduardo Verduzco, would

have supported Defendants theory of defense, it was contradicted by
overwhelming evidence. While the evidence at trial was that Dennis
Gonzalez a/k/a Boxer left Oklahoma City in February 2003 after the
arrest of one of his associates, Alex Figueroa a/k/a Toker, Gonzalez
maintained control of drug trafficking in Oklahoma, even though he
had moved to Florida. Couriers continued to bring crystal
methamphetamine and other controlled substances to Oklahoma City
for distribution at the direction of Dennis Gonzalez.
Fourteen cooperating witnesses testified at trial concerning their
knowledge of Defendants role in arranging for large amounts of
methamphetamine and other drugs to be brought from California to
the Oklahoma City area for distribution and the transfers of funds
obtained from that enterprise. Sixteen law enforcement officers,
agents or employees and numerous business records custodians
testified to corroborating evidence that included telephone records,
airline and other travel records, employment records, documents and
photographs obtained in searches of co-conspirators and their
residences, Western Union wire transfer records, photographs
provided by cooperating witnesses and large quantities of crystal
methamphetamine seized from Jennifer Lujan and thrown out a
window by Eduardo Verduzco on October 23, 2003.
The testimony of witnesses was corroborated by documents
introduced at trial, including an address book with the name of Box
on it that also contained drug ledgers and a drug ledger that showed
money beside the name Box, all of which were found during a
search of the apartment occupied by Eduardo Verduzco and Elizabeth
Serrano on October 23, 2003. The apartment had been rented for
Verduzco by Maria Ginez, Defendants girlfriend, at Defendants
direction.
Moreover, there was significant evidence that after Defendant
moved to Florida in February 2003, transfers of money totalling [sic]
$69,972 from drug trafficking were sent by Oklahoma conspirators to
Florida. Defendants girlfriend, Maria Ginez, testified that while she
was living in Florida after February of 2003 and before her arrest in
October of 2003, Ms. Ginez would pick up money sent by Western
Union wire transfer and give it to Defendant.

27

In the face of this evidence, which also led to Defendants

conviction on money laundering counts that occurred after March,
2003, Defendant cannot show a reasonable probability that the result
of the proceeding would have been different with respect to the
substantive counts committed after February of 2003 for which
Defendant was vicariously liable as a coconspirator.
ROA, Vol. 1 at 455-58.
The district courts conclusions are well-supported by the record on appeal,
particularly the trial transcript. As the district court expressly noted, the evidence
of Gonzalezs guilt on the charges at issue was overwhelming. In turn, Gonzalez
simply cannot establish that he was prejudiced by his trial counsels failure to
present either his ex-wife or Eduardo Verduzco as witnesses on his behalf. We
therefore conclude that Gonzalez has failed to establish his entitlement to a COA
on the issue.
2. Defendants right to be present at in-chambers conference
In the second issue on which he seeks a COA, Gonzalez contends that his
absence from an untranscribed, in-chambers conference during which his counsel
and the trial court discussed whether he consented to his trial counsels
concession of partial guilt to the conspiracy charge violated his right to be present
under Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Due Process
Clause.
The district court concluded this claim was without merit. ROA, Vol. 1
at 465. More specifically, the district court stated:

28

The Courts inquiry to Defendants counsel occurred at one of the

in-chambers conferences the Court held to consider written responses
to be made to written questions received from the jury during their
deliberations. At such conferences, the Court reviewed his proposed
response with all counsel to ascertain their agreement or objection or
conferred with counsel to reach an agreed response to a jury
question. None of these conferences was on the record because there
was no disagreement on the responses to be sent back to the jury.
Defendant was not present at any of these conferences. During one
of these conferences, while the judge and counsel waited for a
drafted response to a jury question to be typed, the court and counsel
engaged in a general conversation regarding the trial and the use of
computer and power point aids at trial. It was during such general
conversation that the court inquired of Defendants counsel as to
whether Defendant had consented to counsels discussion in closing
argument of Defendants guilt to a portion of the conspiracy charge.
The Court was not obligated to make this inquiry. And Defendant
did not have a right under Rule 43, F.R.Crim.P., or the Due Process
Clause to be present at the Courts conferences regarding questions
received from the jury during their deliberations. Such conferences
may be considered an extension of jury instruction conferences and
deal with questions of law or administrative matters. See
F.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(3); Esnault v. Colorado, 980 F.2d 1335, 1337
(10th Cir. 1992) (defendant does not have a due process right to be
present when counsel and the court confer on a question from a
deliberating jury or when a type-written response is given to that jury
question); Larson v. Tansy, 911 F.2d 392, 394 (10th Cir. 1990)
(rarely can a defendant establish that a jury instruction conference
which traditionally addresses purely legal issues, is a conference for
which his presence is essential to his opportunity to present a
defense).
Id. at 465-66.
In our view, reasonable jurists could not debate whether Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 43 afforded Gonzalez the right to be personally present
during the in-chambers conference at issue. To be sure, Rule 43(a)(2) provides
that a criminal defendant must be present at . . . every trial stage, including jury

29

impanelment and the return of the verdict, and the Supreme Court has held that
this provision guarantees a criminal defendant the right to have a jurys question
answered in open court and for his counsel to be given the opportunity to be
heard before the trial judge respond[s] to the question. Rogers v. United States,
422 U.S. 35, 39 (1975). Subsection (b)(3) of Rule 43 also provides, however, that
a criminal defendant need not be present if [t]he proceeding involves only a
conference or hearing on a question of law. Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(3). Here, the
in-chambers conference concerned only a legal question of how to properly
respond to a jury question. Thus, under Rule 43(b)(3), Gonzalezs presence was
not necessary. Moreover, according to the district courts uncontroverted factual
findings, the conversation at issue between the trial judge and Gonzalezs trial
counsel occurred during a lull in the conference, and thus was arguably not even a
pertinent part of the in-chambers conference. Although Gonzalez asserts that the
proceeding shifted from a hearing on a question of law to one that involved a
question of fact directly affecting [his] right to a fair trial, Aplt. Br. at 43, there
is no factual support for that assertion. Indeed, the district court specifically
found that the conversation at issue occurred while the court and parties were
waiting for the agreed response to the jurys question to be transcribed, and there
is no indication that the conversation had any impact whatsoever on the
proceedings.
Similarly, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate whether

30

Gonzalez had a due process right to be present during the in-chambers

conference. In United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985), the Supreme Court
noted that a criminal defendant has a due process right to be present at a
proceeding whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the
fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge, and that [t]he presence
of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just
hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only. Id. at 526
(quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1934)). Applying those
principles to Gonzalezs case, it is clear that a fair and just hearing on the jurys
question would not have been thwarted by his absence, and thus Gonzalez did not
have a due process right to be present at the in-chambers conference on the
question. Further, the discussion that occurred between the district court and
defense counsel had no impact on the district courts response to the jurys
question, or to any other matter at issue before the district court. Gonzalez has
thus failed to establish his entitlement to a COA.
3. Cumulative error
Gonzalez contends he is entitled to a COA on the cumulative error issue he
raised below. We disagree. Because we have found no merit to any of the issues
raised by Gonzalez, there is no basis for applying a cumulative error analysis.
See United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (a
cumulative-error analysis aggregates only actual errors to determine their

31

cumulative effect).
4. Failure to conduct evidentiary hearing
Finally, we reject Gonzalezs contention that he is entitled to a COA on the
question of whether the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary
hearing on any of the issues raised by Gonzalez in his 2255 motion. Having
carefully examined the record on appeal, we readily conclude that there were no
relevant, disputed issues of fact that needed to be resolved, and in turn no need
for an evidentiary hearing. Thus, his request for a COA on this issue is rejected.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Gonzalezs request for a
COA on additional issues is DENIED.

32