Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02540/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02540-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2540

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Bobby Glenn Banks, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 31, 2010

Filed: April 13, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Banks appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

to vacate his conviction on drug charges following a jury trial. The district court

granted a certificate of appealability on whether the court should have conducted an

evidentiary hearing on the motion and whether Banks was deprived of his right to

effective assistance of counsel.

Appellate Case: 09-2540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2010 Entry ID: 3654083
2

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970).

-2-

We reject, as contrary to the record, Banks’s argument that counsel was

ineffective for not informing him of plea-agreement offers. See United States v.

Bryson, 268 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir. 2001) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to

establish ineffective assistance); David v. United States, 134 F.3d 470, 478 (1st Cir.

1998) (district court was not obliged to credit “threadbare allusions to a phantom plea

bargain”). Although Banks argues that he would have proffered an Alford2

 plea if

counsel had informed him of the weight of evidence against him, there is no indication

that he would have received any benefit from such a plea. Cf. United States v.

Regenos, 405 F.3d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 2005) (claim that counsel performed deficiently

during plea negotiations failed because movant could not prove result of plea

negotiations would have been different had counsel performed adequately). We also

agree with the district court that Banks’s remaining ineffective-assistance claims fail,

as he cannot show a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would

have been different given the overwhelming evidence against him. See Williams v.

United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 2006) (considerations for determining

whether prejudice exists). We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of an

evidentiary hearing. See Regenos, 405 F.3d at 693-94 (standard of review).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2010 Entry ID: 3654083