# United States v. Grammas

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 1, 2004 · 376 F.3d 433

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414323

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gus Peter GRAMMAS, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 1, 2004
- **Citations:** 376 F.3d 433; 2004 WL 1472777
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garza
- **Judges:** Garza, Demoss, Clement
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414323

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding in § 2255 case that where legal advice to defendant underestimated maximum punishment, ineffectiveness inquiry included question whether defendant would have pled guilty if he had known of possible sentence
- holding that Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203, 121 S.Ct. 696, 700, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001), which cites Spriggs, abrogates the significantly harsh test only in the federal sentencing context
- observing that the defendant’s trial attorney conceded that he was unfamiliar with the sentencing guidelines and that he misinformed his client that he faced only 6 to 12 months if he was convicted when in actuality the defendant was subject to a range of 70 to 87 months
- noting that “further proceedings in front of the district court” were required in order to determine whether a petitioner would have received a reduced sentence from the district court had he accepted a guilty plea

## Opinion text

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
Because I do not agree with a significant part of the majority’s analysis, see United States v. Grammas, 371 F.3d 281 (5th Cir.2004) (Emilio M. Garza, J., dissenting), I concur in the judgment only.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414323. Public record. Not legal advice.