Case: 18-12643 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 1 of 14 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12643 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 0:18-cv-60138-BB; 0:16-cr-60239-BB-4 NIGEL CHRISTOPHER PAUL MARTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (February 4, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges, and PAULEY,* District Judge. PAULEY, District Judge: * Honorable William H. Pauley III, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Case: 18-12643 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 2 of 14 Nigel Christopher Paul Martin, a citizen of Jamaica, appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. On appeal, Martin argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his claim without holding an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, Martin claims that he would not have pled guilty to access device fraud and aggravated identity theft but for his counsel’s erroneous advice concerning the deportation consequences of his plea. We affirm the ruling of the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In December 2016, a federal grand jury charged Martin with conspiracy to commit access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2) (“Count One”), access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (“Count Two”), and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (“Count Nine”). The superseding indictment alleged that Martin and his co-defendants were involved in a scheme to make unauthorized credit card purchases at retail stores using credit card accounts issued to other individuals. Martin pled guilty to Counts Two and Nine pursuant to a plea agreement. As relevant here, that plea agreement included a provision explaining the potential immigration consequences of the plea. Martin acknowledged that “[r]emoval and other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate proceeding” and that “no one, including the defendant’s attorney or the Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of the defendant’s conviction on the defendant’s immigration status.” Martin also affirmed in the plea agreement that he wished to plead guilty “regardless 2 Case: 18-12643 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 3 of 14 of any immigration consequences,” including “automatic removal from the United States.” During his allocution, the district court asked Martin whether he fully discussed the charges with his attorney, whether he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation of him, and whether he had read and understood the plea agreement. Martin answered each inquiry in the affirmative. Three times he confirmed that no one made any promises or assurances of any kind, other than what was set forth in the plea agreement. The district court then asked Martin about his understanding of the immigration consequences of his plea: THE COURT: Have you and [your attorney] discussed the immigration consequences of your guilty plea? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And you understand, sir, that if you are not a citizen of the United States, in addition to the other possible penalties you are facing, a plea of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals