[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 11252 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 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 Jud ges. PER CURIAM: Tolbert Bain II appeals t he 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 32 ple a d ed guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver 100 grams or more o f heroin

. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Bain argues that the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing to prove hi s 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 w e review de novo the mixed question of law and fact w hether 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). I f the movant alleges facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief, the district court should order an eviden tiary hearing. Aron , 291 F.3d at 71 4

– 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 33 contentions that in the face of th e record are wholly incredible.” Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S. Ct. 1621, 1629 (1977).
T he 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, t he 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 c ollateral review, the district court was entitl ed 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 f aced a harsher punishment if he rejected the plea offer. And Bain ’s later testimony

− t hat defense counsel advised him that a jury would have difficulty believing his assertion of lack of knowledge

− c onfirmed that his plea was both knowing and voluntary

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