charging Morales contained two counts: a conspiracy count involving one kilogram or more of heroin and a substantive count involving 100 grams or more of heroin. The reference to Section 841(b)(1)(B) clearly informed Morales that the government would seek and the District Court would be required to impose a sentence of at least ten years on the substantive count. Morales contended at sentencing that he went to trial because he believed that the only mandatory minimum the government would seek was the ten years authorized by Section 841(b)(1)(B). This argument has some force because lack of an affirmative obligation to convey information does not necessarily excuse the giving of potentially misleading incomplete information. Cf. United States v. Couto, 311 F.3d 179, 187-88 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, because Section 851 does not
holding that attorneys failure to timely file application for suspension of deportation despite contrary representations to client constituted ineffective assistance holding that although we had previously held that an attorneys failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a conviction was not ineffective assistance actively misleading the client concerning these consequences was ineffective assistance holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because there is no duty to inform a client about conviction at trial of a lesser included offense when such a possibility is nonexistent holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel