Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05028/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

EDGARDO JASSO CHAVERO, 

previously named as Edgardo ChaveroJasso, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-5028 

(D.C. Nos. 4:13-CV-00791-CVE-TLW and 

4:12-CR-00101-CVE-6) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Edgardo Jasso-Chavero, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from a 

district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion and denying an 

evidentiary hearing. We conclude that further factual development of JassoChavero’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is necessary. Accordingly, we 

reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment. 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 4, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 1 
-2- 

I

 We outlined the facts of this case in our prior order granting in part and 

denying in part Jasso-Chavero’s application for a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”). See Order Granting in Part & Den. in Part a COA, No. 15-5028 (10th Cir., 

filed Aug. 11, 2015). Accordingly, we provide only a brief summary of the facts 

relevant to the single issue upon which we granted a COA. 

 In his § 2255 motion, Jasso-Chavero claimed that he was denied effective 

assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal despite a 

timely request to do so. He attached an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, 

stating that he “asked counsel to file an appeal” but “counsel failed to file a notice of 

appeal despite defendant’s timely request.” 

In response, the government submitted an affidavit from defense counsel, who 

stated that he met with Jasso-Chavero in jail after sentencing to discuss a potential 

appeal. According to counsel, he provided Jasso-Chavero a form titled 

“Acknowledgment of Right to Appeal from Conviction and/or Sentence,” which was 

translated by an interpreter. After first refusing to sign the form, Jasso-Chavero told his 

counsel at the end of the meeting that he did not want to file a direct appeal and signed 

the portion of the form stating so. The form is attached to counsel’s affidavit. Counsel 

states that he advised Jassso-Chavero to contact him if he changed his mind within the 

fourteen-day deadline to appeal, but Jasso-Chavero did not do so. 

In his reply, Jasso-Chavero acknowledged that he signed the form. However, he 

claims that he only signed because counsel stated “that it was not convenient at taht [sic] 

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 2 
-3- 

time, but that he would appeal after he [sic] got to prison and that he himself would 

assist.” Jasso-Chavero states that he was “induced to sign” the form only because of 

counsel’s false promise. He requested an evidentiary hearing. 

 The district court denied relief and declined to order an evidentiary hearing. It 

noted that, as a general matter, it “would be required to hold an evidentiary hearing to 

resolve factual disputes as to defendant’s claim that he directed his attorney to file a 

notice of appeal.” But the court concluded that “[t]here is undisputed evidence in the 

record that defendant did not direct [counsel] to file a notice of appeal,” citing counsel’s 

affidavit. In discussing this issue, the court did not refer to the allegations contained in 

Jasso-Chavero’s reply. 

 Jasso-Chavero filed a timely notice of appeal. We granted a COA on the issue of 

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing as to 

Jasso-Chavero’s claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal despite his timely 

request. 

II

 We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Clingman, 288 F.3d 1183, 1187 n.4 (10th Cir. 2002). “Unless the motion and 

the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no 

relief, the court shall . . . grant a prompt hearing thereon . . . .” § 2255(b). When a 

movant’s allegations—if accepted as true—would entitle him to relief, a district court 

generally may not make “findings on controverted issues of fact . . . without a hearing.” 

Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493-94 (1962). However, “[c]onclusory 

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 3 
-4- 

allegations unsupported by specifics are insufficient to require a court to grant an 

evidentiary hearing, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly 

incredible.” Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1211 (10th Cir. 1989) (quotation 

and ellipses omitted), overruled on other grounds as stated in Phillips v. Ferguson, 182 

F.3d 769, 772-73 (10th Cir. 1999). 

 Jasso-Chavero alleged in his § 2255 motion that he timely requested that counsel 

file an appeal, and that counsel failed to do so. He attached an affidavit to the same 

effect. A particularized claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal despite a 

timely request is generally sufficient to warrant relief. See United States v. Snitz, 342 

F.3d 1154, 1155-56 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[A] lawyer who disregards specific instructions to 

perfect a criminal appeal acts in a manner that is both professionally unreasonable and 

presumptively prejudicial.”); see also United States v. Garrett, 402 F.3d 1262, 1266-67 

(10th Cir. 2005) (evidentiary hearing required when habeas movant claims he requested 

an appeal but attorney denies claim). 

 The district court relied on the waiver form submitted by counsel to hold that the 

record conclusively established that Jasso-Chavero was not entitled to relief. But it 

appears that the district court did not consider Jasso-Chavero’s allegation that counsel 

induced him to sign the form by falsely promising to assist with an appeal at a later date. 

If accepted as true, these allegations indicate that Jasso-Chavero did not knowingly and 

voluntarily withdraw his alleged request that an appeal be filed. See United States v. 

Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (valid waiver of appellate rights 

must be done “knowingly and voluntarily”). 

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 4 
-5- 

 In its filings with this court, the government suggests that Jasso-Chavero’s 

allegations are conclusory and palpably incredible. It argues that the claims JassoChavero asserts in his reply were similar to those in United States v. Harrison, 375 F. 

App’x 830 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). In that case, we held that an evidentiary 

hearing was not required based on an allegation that “[c]ounsel told Appellant that he 

need not worry, as it would all get corrected on Direct Appeal.” Id. at 833. But the 

government’s argument ignores Jasso-Chavero’s affidavit, in which he affirmatively 

states that he asked counsel to file an appeal. See United States v. Lee-Speight, 529 F. 

App’x 903, 905 (10th Cir 2013) (unpublished) (statement that counsel “failed to file a 

notice of appeal . . . as requested by petitioner to do so” sufficient). Taken together, 

Jasso-Chavero’s allegations would entitle him to relief if proven to be true, particularly 

when afforded a liberal construction due to his pro se status. See Barnett v. Hargett, 174 

F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999). 

 The government also argues that Jasso-Chavero’s credibility is suspect for a 

number of reasons. There is little doubt that Jasso-Chavero undermined his credibility 

during district court proceedings. Had the district court expressly rejected JassoChavero’s statements as unworthy of credence, taking into account his reply brief, this 

appeal would stand in a different posture. But the district court did not make a credibility 

determination, nor did it grapple with the allegations contained in Jasso-Chavero’s reply. 

Under these circumstances, we are ill-equipped to review a hypothetical credibility 

ruling. See Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 444 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[W]ithout an 

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 5 
-6- 

explanation of why it exercised its discretion in the manner it did, we are unable to 

review the district court’s decision.”).1

 Although we conclude that this case requires further development, we do not hold 

that the district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing. “[T]here are times when 

allegations of facts outside the record can be fully investigated without requiring the 

personal presence of the prisoner.” Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 495; see also Lee-Speight, 

529 F. App’x at 907 n.5 (“[T]he district court retains flexibility to utilize alternative 

methods to expand the record without conducting an extensive hearing.” (quotation 

omitted)). Both parties have noted that an affidavit from the interpreter who witnessed 

Jasso-Chavero’s meeting with counsel may be useful. And in rare circumstances, a 

district court may make a credibility finding solely on the basis of affidavits. See 

Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1161 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that trial courts are 

entitled to deference as to findings regarding the credibility of affidavits). On the record 

before us, however, we are compelled to remand for further development. 

III 

We REVERSE and REMAND with directions for the district court to vacate 

its dismissal of Jasso-Chavero’s habeas motion and further develop the factual record 

 1

 The government also notes that Jasso-Chavero’s reply was not signed under 

penalty of perjury. Under Rule 2(b)(5) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, a 

§ 2255 motion must be signed under penalty of perjury. Even assuming this rule governs 

replies, however, movants should generally be provided an opportunity to correct such a 

defect. See United States v. Guerrero, 488 F.3d 1313, 1316 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing 

§ 2255 Rules, Advisory Committee Notes, 2004 amendments). 

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 6 
-7- 

as necessary to resolve in the first instance the merits of his ineffective assistance 

claim. We GRANT the government’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-5028 Document: 01019518196 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 7