Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01760/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01760-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Virginia Ledesma-Cardenas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1760

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Plaintiff – Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

 * Southern District of Iowa.

Virginia Ledesma-Cardenas, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant – Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 2007 

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Virginia Ledesma-Cardenas appeals the dismissal of her motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct her sentence, claiming her trial counsel failed to file a notice

appealing that sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. At an evidentiary hearing, counsel

stated (and the district court1

 found) that initially Ledesma wanted to appeal, but after

they discussed her case, he believed she no longer wished to appeal. Although

Ledesma testified that she never discussed the possibility of appeal with her counsel,

she now relies on his testimony to argue that she told him she wanted to appeal. The

Appellate Case: 06-1760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321086
-2-

district court found counsel credible, concluding that Ledesma’s desire to appeal was

not made manifest to him, and therefore counsel did not fail in his duty to file an

appeal.

This court defers to a district court’s credibility determination. Barger v. United

States, 204 F.3d 1180, 1182 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming district court decision crediting

attorney’s testimony that his client did not request an appeal); Green v. United States,

323 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir. 2003) (same). Ledesma’s assertion that she made a

request is not “by itself sufficient to support a grant of relief [under § 2255], if

evidence that the fact-finder finds to be more credible indicates the contrary position.”

Id. Having carefully reviewed the record, this court finds that the district court’s

findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears. See United

States v. Davis, 406 F.3d 505, 508 (8th Cir. 2005); Green, 323 F.3d at 1103; Barger,

204 F.3d at 1182.

As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321086