[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 38 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 11 -cv -2 14 28 -PCH, 1: 09 -cr- 20 13 8- PCH-5 ALEXIS CARRAZANA, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 17 , 20 13 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntAlex is Carr azan a, a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s the di stric t co urt’s Case: 12-10389 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 Page: 1 of 5de ni al of h is m ot io n t o v acat e b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. In hi s

m ot io n, Ca rraz an a co nt en de d t ha t h is att orne y pro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e b y m is in fo rm in g h im

th athe ha d wi th dr awnfro m th e co ns pi racy at a ce rta in po in t, an d, the refo re, the di st ric t co urt co ul d n otco ns id er the act io ns of h is co -co ns pi rat or s af

te r th atpo in t as rel ev an t co nduc t fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es . Thu s, he arg ue d, h is gu il ty ple a was ren de redin vo lu nt ary. W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

as t o “ whe th er the di stric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d p et it io ne r’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n a ll eg in g i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i n a dv is in g C arra zan a ab ou t h is de ci si on to en te r a p le a o f gu il ty.” O n app eal , Carra zan a arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y de ni edhi s § 22 55 m ot io n wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se he all eg edfact s tha t, i f true , wou ldha ve en ti tl edhi m to rel ie f. Ina pr oc eed in g u nd er § 22 55 , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s de no vo an d fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Devi ne v. Uni te d Sta tes , 52 0 F .3d12 86 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In a n app eal bro ug htby an uns uc ces sf ul habe as pe ti ti on er, o urrev ie w is li m it edto th e is su es sp eci fie d i n the cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity . Mur ra

y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 14 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 50 -5 1 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 8) . “ A cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i s a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct th atwe rev ie w de no vo .” Devi ne , 52 0 F .3dat 1 28 7. Where th e m ov an t “ al le ge s fact s tha t, i f true , wou lden ti tl e h im to rel ie f,” the di stric t co urt s ho ul d h ol d a n 2 Case: 12-10389 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 Page: 2 of 5ev id en ti ary he ari ng to de te rm in e th e m eri ts of h is cla im . Aro n v . Uni te d Sta tes ,

29 1 F .3d70 8, 7 14 -1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Nev erthe le ss , th e d is tri ctco urt n eedno t d o s o i f th e rec or d a ffi rm at iv el y co nt rad ic ts th e m ov an t’s al le ga ti on s o r th e cl ai m s ar e p at en tl y fri vo lo us . Id. at 7 15 . To p ro ve in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, the m ov an t m us t s ho w th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) th atth e at to rn ey m ad e erro rs so ser io us th atsh e cea se d t o fu nc ti on as th e co un se l tha t the Six th Am en dm en t g ua ran te es ; an d (2 ) th atth e err or s pr ejud ic edth e d efen se . Stri cklan d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7, 1 04 S. Ct . 20 52 , 20 64 , 80 L. Ed. 2d67 4 (1 98 4) . This two -p ro ng tes t ap pl ie s t o ch al le ng es of g ui lt y

pl eas ba se d o n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. Hil l v. Lo ckh ar t , 47 4 U.S. 5 2, 5 8, 1 06 S. Ct. 3 66 , 37 0, 8 8 L. Ed. 2 d 2 03 (19 85 ). A pl ea i s vo lu nt ary so lo ng as c ou ns el ’s adv ic e fal ls “ withi n t he ran ge of c om pe te nc e de m an de d o f at to rn ey s i n c riminal cas es .” Id. at 5 6, 1 06 S. Ct. at36 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A cou rt’s re vi ew of anatt orne y ’s per fo rm an ce i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l, an d i t m

us t em pl oy a str on g p res um

pt io n t ha t co un se l’s co nduc t fa ll s withi n t he wid e ran ge of r eas on ab le pro fes si on al ass is ta nc e. Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at68 9, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 65 . The m ov an t m us t d em on st rat e th atco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was ob

jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Id. at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . To

3 Case: 12-10389 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 Page: 3 of 5pr ov e p reju di ce i n t he co nt ex t o f a g ui lt y pl ea, a d efen da ntm

us t s ho w a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r hi s at to rn ey ’s erro rs , he wo ul d n otha ve pl ead edgu il ty and wou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o t ria l. Hil l , 47 4 U.S. at59 , 10 6 S . Ct. at37 0. In Uni te d Sta tes v. Pea se , th e d efen da ntarg ue d tha t h is att orne y ’s in effe ct iv en es s re nd eredhi s p le a in vo lu nt ary whe re the att orne y di d n otco nduc t anin ve st ig at io n i nt o h is cri min al hi st ory , bu t ra th er m erel y ask edth e d efen da ntif he ha d p rio r co nv ic ti on s. 2 40 F.3d93 8, 9 41 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The d efen da ntdi d no t t el l the att orne y

of apri orco nv ic ti on , andth e at to rn ey di d n otin de pe nd en tl y di sc ov er the co nv ic ti on . Id. at 9 41 & n .3. Co ns eque nt ly, th e at to rn ey m is cal cu la te d t he de fen da nt ’s po te nt ia l s en te nc e und er h is pl ea ag reem en t. Se e id. at 9 40 -4 1. We hel d t ha t the de fen da ntha d n otpro ve n t ha t h is att orne y ’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntun de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , stres si ng th atwhet he r an at to rn ey ’s rel ia nc e o n acli en t’s s ta te m en t o f hi s o wn cr im in al hi st ory is de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce d ep en ds on th e p ecu li ar fac ts of e ach cas e. Id. at 9 41 -4 2. Ourrev ie w of the reco rdpe rs ua de s u s tha t Ca rraz an a h as no t s ho wn tha t h is at to rn ey ’s per fo rm an ce was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le , no r di d h e sh ow a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforhi s at to rn ey ’s erro ne ou s ad vi ce, h e wou ldha ve pl ead edno t g ui lt y

an d i ns is te d o n g oi ng to tri al . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g C arra zan a’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n. 4 Case: 12-10389 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 Page: 4 of 5AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 12-10389 Date Filed: 01/17/2013 Page: 5 of 5