IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60427

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN DEWAYNE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:10-CV-34

Before SMITH, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Dewayne Williams, federal prisoner # 93929-022, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his guilty plea

conviction for attempting to commit extortion affecting interstate commerce in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. A judge of this court granted Williams a certificate

of appealability on the issue whether Williams was entitled to an evidentiary

hearing on his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 19, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60427 Document: 00512026703 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2012
No. 11-60427

informing him prior to his guilty plea that his sentencing guidelines range of

imprisonment would be about 15 to 21 months.

To establish thathis attorney performed ineffectively, Williams must show

both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient

performance prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

687 (1984). To show prejudice in the context of a guilty plea, Williams must

establish 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.” Hill v.

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). A prisoner’s allegation that he would not have

pleaded guilty must be reasonable. Armstead v. Scott, 37 F.3d 202, 210 (5th Cir.

1994). A failure to establish either deficient performance or prejudice defeats

the claim. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.

The district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the

defendant produces “independent indicia of the likely merit of [his] allegations.” 

United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation

marks omitted). “Once such independent evidence is presented, ‘[a] motion

brought under . . . § 2255 can be denied without a hearing only if the motion,

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

relief.’” United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 442 (5th Cir. 2008). This court

reviews the denial of a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998).

Assuming, arguendo, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in 

misadvising Williams of his sentencing exposure, the district court correctly

determined that Williams had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that

but for the misadvice, he would have gone to trial. As the district court

explained,the evidence against Williams was strong and his entrapment defense

was not viable. Even if arguably misadvised about his potential sentencing

range, Williams was aware that he faced a potential 20-year sentence and that

the government was requesting sentencing enhancements that would (and did)

2

Case: 11-60427 Document: 00512026703 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2012
No. 11-60427

markedly increase his guideline range. Thus informed, Williams opted to plead

guilty, knowing that doing so would give him the benefit of a 2-level reduction

in base offense level and might result in a below-guidelines sentence. Because 

the record does not support the defendant’s generalized assertion that his plea

was involuntary, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its

discretion in denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See

United States v. Walker, 68 F.3d 931, 934 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.

Mackay, 339 F. App’x 367, 369 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-60427 Document: 00512026703 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2012