Castro v. United States ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-2086
CHRISTIAN CASTRO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Christian Castro on brief pro se.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark
Terison, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
September 6, 2000
Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record
and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm.
Even if appellant Christian Castro (“Castro”) had
adequately alleged in his § 2255 petition that his counsel
fell below the standard of care – a matter we do not decide
– Castro wholly failed to establish that any alleged
failure on counsel’s part caused him prejudice. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). “A defendant who
enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under
[U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1] as a matter of right.” See U.S.S.G. §
3E1.1, app. note 3; see also United States v. Muriel, 111
F.3d 975, 982 (1 st Cir. 1997). Rather, the court must
consider a number of factors, including whether defendant
“truthfully admit[s] the conduct comprising the offense[] of
conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, app. note 1(a). Castro
indicates he would only have been willing to enter into a
plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25(1970), so he has failed to allege he would have “truthfully
admitted” that he had conspired to distribute cocaine base.
-2-
Further, he has not alleged that he could have
earned a section 3E1.1 reduction by pointing to any other
factor listed in application note 1; and we see no
indication in the record that he could have supported any
such allegation. See generally United States v. Burns, 925
F.2d 18, 20-21 (1 st Cir. 1991) (defendant entered Alford
plea; court properly denied section 3E1.1 reduction where
evidence as a whole indicated a lack of acceptance of
responsibility). Thus, Castro failed to show any reasonable
probability that the result at his sentencing would have
been different had his attorney convinced him to plead
guilty, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; so the lower court did
not err in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See United States
v. McGill, 11 F.3d 223, 225-26 (1st Cir. 1993) (“[A] § 2255
motion may be denied without a hearing as to those
allegations which, if accepted as true, entitled the movant
to no relief. . . .”).
Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
-3-