Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-03161/USCOURTS-ca6-14-03161-0/pdf.json

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

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0045n.06

No. 14-3161

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

AUGUSTIN GALVIN-GARCIA, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Augustin Galvin-Garcia, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment 

denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Galvin-Garcia pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). The district court sentenced him to 110 months in prison. 

Galvin-Garcia filed a § 2255 motion, raising several claims, including that his trial counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal upon his request and by failing 

to consult with him about an appeal. The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for the 

ineffective-assistance claim and dismissed the remaining claims. Following the evidentiary 

hearing, the district court denied Galvin-Garcia relief on the ineffective-assistance claim but 

granted him a certificate of appealability.

On appeal, Galvin-Garcia argues that the district court erred by denying him relief on the 

ineffective-assistance claim because the evidence showed that his trial counsel failed to properly 

 Case: 14-3161 Document: 15-2 Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 1
No. 14-3161

Galvin-Garcia v. United States

- 2 -

consult with him about an appeal. When reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review the 

district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Dawson v. 

United States, 702 F.3d 347, 349 (6th Cir. 2012). To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, a 

defendant must show that his counsel performed deficiently and that he suffered prejudice as a 

result. United States v. Doyle, 631 F.3d 815, 817 (6th Cir. 2011). Where a defendant does not 

instruct counsel to file an appeal, we must ask whether counsel consulted with the defendant 

about an appeal, which requires advising the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages 

of taking an appeal and making a reasonable effort to discover the defendant’s wishes. Id.

at 817-18.

The district court did not err in denying Galvin-Garcia’s § 2255 motion because the 

court’s factual findings, which are not clearly erroneous, show that counsel adequately consulted 

with Galvin-Garcia about an appeal. Several days before the sentencing hearing, counsel had a 

discussion with Galvin-Garcia about his appellate rights and whether there were any viable 

issues for appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel advised Galvin-Garcia that he should 

not appeal, and Galvin-Garcia told the court that he would “think it over.” After the sentencing 

hearing, counsel explained Galvin-Garcia’s appellate rights to his authorized representative on 

several occasions, and counsel told the representative to contact him if Galvin-Garcia wanted to 

appeal. Counsel also sent Galvin-Garcia a letter offering to do anything that was necessary for 

his case. Because counsel adequately consulted with Galvin-Garcia about an appeal, GalvinGarcia has not shown that counsel performed deficiently.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

 Case: 14-3161 Document: 15-2 Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 2