[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11252

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-cv-20371-FAM, 1:10-cr-20771-FAM-2

TOLBERT RAYMOND BAIN, II, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 12, 2014)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Tolbert Bain II appeals the denial of his pro se motion to vacate his sentence

of imprisonment for 41 months, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was imposed after he 

Case: 13-11252 Date Filed: 05/12/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver 100 grams or more of 

heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Bain argues that the district court erred in denying him an 

evidentiary hearing to prove his claim that his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance 

rendered his guilty plea involuntary. We affirm.

Two standards of review govern this appeal. We review for abuse of 

discretion the denial of an evidentiary hearing for a motion to vacate. Aron v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 708, 714 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002). And we review de novo the 

mixed question of law and fact whether counsel was ineffective. Thompson v. 

United States, 504 F.3d 1203, 1206 n.4 (11th Cir. 2007). 

A movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the district court “[u]nless

the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner 

is entitled to no relief . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). If the movant alleges facts that, 

if true, would entitle him to relief, the district court should order an evidentiary 

hearing. Aron, 291 F.3d at 714–15. But a district court need not hold an 

evidentiary hearing where the movant’s allegations “are affirmatively contradicted 

by the record, or the claims are patently frivolous . . . .” Id. at 715. The Supreme 

Court has explained that “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong 

presumption of verity,” and “[t]he subsequent presentation of conclusory 

allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary dismissal, as are 

Case: 13-11252 Date Filed: 05/12/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.” Blackledge v. 

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S. Ct. 1621, 1629 (1977). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bain an evidentiary 

hearing to prove that his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance rendered his guilty 

plea involuntary. Before accepting Bain’s plea, the district court conducted a 

thorough plea colloquy during which Bain, under oath, admitted his guilt of the 

offense and expressed his satisfaction with the advice of his counsel. On collateral 

review, the district court was entitled to presume that Bain’s earlier sworn 

statements during the plea hearing were true. During his plea hearing, Bain 

admitted that counsel discussed his plea agreement with him and that he

understood that he faced a harsher punishment if he rejected the plea offer. And 

Bain’s later testimony−that defense counsel advised him that a jury would have 

difficulty believing his assertion of lack of knowledge−confirmed that his plea was 

both knowing and voluntary.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11252 Date Filed: 05/12/2014 Page: 3 of 3