Hronek v. United States , 250 F. App'x 134 ( 2007 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0714n.06
Filed: October 3, 2007
Case No. 06-3329
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TERRY HRONEK,
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Respondent-Appellee. )
_______________________________________ )
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; ROSEN,* District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted Terry Hronek
and two co-defendants for conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(a)(1), and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Hronek pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment and the court sentenced
him to 125 months in prison. The plea agreement required him to forfeit various properties,
including a home located on Lake Rockwell Road in Ravenna, Ohio. Hronek’s lawyer had
erroneously advised Hronek that he would be able to repurchase this home and the government had
also indicated that such a repurchase was possible. But after signing the plea agreement and pleading
guilty, Hronek discovered that 21 U.S.C. § 853(h) prohibited him from repurchasing forfeited
property. On December 19, 2002, the district court filed its 35-page final order of forfeiture.
*
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
designation.
Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, Hronek moved the district court to “Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on “ineffective assistance of
counsel during plea negotiations,” due process violations, newly-discovered evidence, and United
States v. Booker. The district court denied the petition, explaining that Hronek was not prejudiced
by his lawyer’s ignorance about the forfeiture laws because “the letters petitioner provides in which
his attorney discusses the erroneous application of the forfeiture laws are all dated after he entered
his plea,” and “[o]ther than petitioner’s self-serving affidavit, there is simply no evidence that
petitioner’s counselor provided erroneous advice prior to the time he changed his plea.” The court
also found that “the vacation taken by petitioner’s attorney did not result in ineffective assistance of
counsel. Rather, it was petitioner’s own inability to provide assistance, which resulted in the
government ceasing its cooperation efforts with petitioner.” The court found that Hronek had
procedurally defaulted on his alleged due process violations by failing to raise them on direct appeal,
and that his alleged “newly discovered evidence” was neither newly discovered nor exculpatory.
Finally, the court explained that Booker does not apply retroactively. Hronek appealed.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the
district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies that law to the facts
contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
2