United States v. White ( 2021 )

Case: 19-30378 Document: 00515792942 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-30378 March 23, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher White,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:17-CV-13433
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher White pleaded guilty to: conspiring to commit healthcare
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349; and conspiring to falsify
records in a federal investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1519.
United States v. White, 694 F. App’x 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2017). In a 28 U.S.C.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-30378 Document: 00515792942 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2021
No. 19-30378
§ 2255 motion, he claimed plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), by, inter alia, failing to provide
adequate advice about pleading guilty.
White’s plea counsel, in an affidavit filed in district court, broadly
admitted the allegations. The court nonetheless denied the motion without
a hearing.
Our court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the
Strickland ineffective-counsel claim. In doing so, it also directed the parties
to include on appeal a discussion of whether the district court abused its
discretion by failing to conduct a hearing.
Proceeding pro se, White contends, inter alia: he was constructively
denied any assistance of counsel; and prejudice should therefore be
presumed under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658–59 (1984). This
claim substantially differs from a claim of ineffective counsel under Strickland
because a claim under Chronic asserts a party received no counsel
whatsoever. See Black v. Davis, 902 F.3d 541, 546–47 (5th Cir. 2018)
(explaining differences in Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claims under
Strickland and Cronic and holding each must be independently raised).
White, however, neither sought nor obtained a COA on a Cronic claim.
Therefore, we cannot consider it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Larry v.
Dretke, 361 F.3d 890, 896 (5th Cir. 2004) (“We may not consider a habeas
claim unless a COA has been issued on that claim.”).
Accordingly, the only issue we consider is the district court’s denial
without a hearing of White’s motion, based on his Strickland ineffective-
assistance claim. The court’s not holding a hearing is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Reed, 719 F.3d 369, 373 (5th Cir. 2013). “Unless
the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the
prisoner is entitled to no relief”, the district court in a § 2255 case “shall . . .
2
Case: 19-30378 Document: 00515792942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2021
No. 19-30378
grant a prompt hearing” before making the necessary findings and
conclusions. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary
hearing if he makes specific factual claims that are “not speculative,
conclusory, plainly false, or contradicted by the record”. Reed, 719 F.3d at
374. Along that line, although the Government does not concede that
White’s counsel was ineffective under Strickland, it agrees that counsel’s
admissions indicate the potential merit of White’s claim, and that the record,
therefore, does not conclusively show White is not entitled to relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255(b).
The district court abused its discretion by declining to hold an
evidentiary hearing in the light of counsel’s admissions. See Reed, 719 F.3d
at 373–74 . Therefore, White will have the opportunity at an evidentiary
hearing to prove his counsel’s ineffectiveness under Strickland. See United
States v. Allen, 918 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2019) (vacating judgment and
remanding for evidentiary hearing after district court denied § 2255 motion
without hearing).
VACATED and REMANDED.
3