Case: 18-10376 Date Filed: 12/10/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10376 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-23432-PAS, 1:15-cr-20985-PAS-1 MARIO JAVIER CEDENO-GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (December 10, 2018) Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10376 Date Filed: 12/10/2018 Page: 2 of 6 Mario Cedeno-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The district court denied Cedeno-Gonzalez’s motion to vacate his 27-month sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Cedeno-Gonzalez now appeals, arguing that his conviction is invalid because his counsel furnished ineffective assistance under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) by failing to explain to him that he was pleading guilty to an aggravated felony that would not only render him removable, but would disqualify him from almost every form of immigration relief, making his removal virtually certain. Cendeno-Gonzalez also argues that the district court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion. We disagree and affirm. I. In an appeal from a § 2255 proceeding, this Court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2014). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo. Id. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). We address each prong, in reverse order. 2 Case: 18-10376 Date Filed: 12/10/2018 Page: 3 of 6 To establish prejudice, the defendant must show “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. In the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370 (1985). Post-hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s deficiencies are generally insufficient. See Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1967 (2017). Instead, contemporaneous evidence should be given the most weight. Id. When a defendant pleads guilty, his declarations under oath carry a strong presumption of truth. Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014). Cedeno-Gonzalez has not established prejudice. Any defect in his counsel’s performance was cured by the plea agreement and plea colloquy. First, the plea agreement contained a specific paragraph explaining the possible immigration consequences of the plea. The agreement stated that Cedeno-Gonzalez wished to plead guilty “regardless of any immigration consequences,” including “automatic ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals