United States v. Alarcon ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-50203
    (Summary Calendar)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JAIME EDUARDO ALARCON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    (USDC No. EP-95-CV-488-H)
    - - - - - - - - - -
    September 30, 1996
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jaime Eduardo Alarcon appeals from the district court’s order
    dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.   Alarcon argues that his guilty plea
    was unknowing and involuntary, the factual basis was inadequate to
    support his guilty plea, counsel was ineffective because he coerced
    *
    Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
    47.5.4.
    Alarcon into entering a guilty plea, and the district court erred
    in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
    Alarcon failed to establish that his guilty plea, which was
    allegedly     based   on    an   unkept      promise,    was    unknowing     and
    involuntary.      See United States v. Smith, 
    915 F.2d 959
    , 963
    (5th Cir. 1990).      The district court's finding that the factual
    basis was sufficient to support the plea was not clearly erroneous.
    See United States v. Adams, 
    961 F.2d 505
    , 508 (5th Cir. 1992).                The
    district court did not err in determining that Alarcon’s guilty
    plea was not coerced.       See Blackledge v. Allison, 
    431 U.S. 63
    , 74
    (1977).     Alarcon’s contention that counsel was ineffective for
    failing to investigate or file pretrial motions was not adequately
    briefed and is thus deemed abandoned.              See Brinkmann v. Dallas
    County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
    The   district    court    did   not   err    in   refusing    to   conduct    an
    evidentiary      hearing   because     the    record     is    sufficient     for
    determination of Alarcon’s contentions.                 See United States v.
    Drummond, 
    910 F.2d 284
    , 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 
    498 U.S. 1104
    (1991).
    AFFIRMED.
    2