Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03278/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03278-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Ramos Galvan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3278

___________

Rene Ramos Galvan, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

United States of America, * District of Minnesota

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: July 29, 2004

Filed: July 14, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rene Galvan appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for

the District of Minnesota denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his drugconspiracy conviction following his guilty plea. The district court granted a

certificate of appealability on Galvan’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective. For

the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Appellate Case: 03-3278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928074
-2-

Because Galvan pleaded guilty, he must establish that counsel’s advice fell

outside the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. See Hill

v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985). He must show both that counsel’s performance

was deficient, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors,

he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See

Gumangan v. United States, 254 F.3d 701, 705 (8th Cir. 2001). Galvan stipulated to

the drug amount in his plea agreement and at his plea hearing in exchange for

concessions by the government, and he has not shown that counsel was deficient in

advising him to accept the benefit of the agreement. Even assuming counsel

performed deficiently in failing to interview Galvan’s co-defendants, Galvan has not

shown any resulting prejudice. See United States v. Bryson, 268 F.3d 560, 562 (8th

Cir. 2001) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish ineffective assistance),

cert. denied, 536 U.S. 963 (2002). We thus find that the district court did not err in

denying the claim without an evidentiary hearing. See Engelen v. United States, 68

F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928074