FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 03, 2002

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 00-11368

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-01265-3:CV-J-20B

RON C. BROADWATER, 

a.k.a. Ronald Hampton,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(June 3, 2002)

Before ANDERSON, HULL and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-appellant Ronald Broadwater (“Broadwater”) filed a pro se 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion on December 28, 1999 challenging his conviction and sentence
2

for possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. Broadwater alleged six

substantive ineffective assistance of counsel errors. On January 3, 2000, the District

Court summarily denied the motion in a one-sentence order stating, “[t]he Defendant’s

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct His Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(Doc. No. 168, filed December 28, 1999) is DENIED.” (No. 99-1265-Civ-J-20B). 

 We vacate and remand so that the district court can provide further explanation

of its ruling in order to “provide this court with a sufficient basis for review.” Hart

v. United States, 565 F.2d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1978) (remanding a summary denial of

§ 2255 motion due to insufficient basis for review).

Broadwater asserted in his § 2255 motion that his counsel was ineffective in (1)

failing to challenge at sentencing or on appeal the district court’s drug quantity

finding; (2) failing to challenge at sentencing or on appeal the district court’s firearm

possession finding; (3) failing to move for a judgment of acquittal or challenge on

appeal the sufficiency of the evidence; (4) failing to object to or challenge on appeal

the admission of drugs and the firearm found at the automobile crash site; (5) failing

to object to, impeach, or challenge on appeal a government witness’s purportedly

inconsistent prior testimony; and (6) failing to raise at trial or challenge on appeal

claims that (a) prosecution was barred by the previous dismissal of charges in a prior
3

indictment, and (b) Broadwater was unfairly prejudiced at trial by the introduction of

evidence of his alleged use of the alias “Ronald Hampton.”

Under Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases , Rule 4 (b), a district court faced

with a § 2255 motion may make an order for its summary dismissal “[i]f it plainly

appears from the face of the motion and any annexed exhibits and the prior

proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief . . . .” 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2255. In view of the number of allegations and the size of the record here, it is not

readily apparent that this is such a case. Without an answer or other pleading from the

United States Attorney which might have directed the district court to the relevant

parts of the record, even a complete reading of the record on appellate review would

not reveal upon what portions of the record the district court relied. The district

court’s order gives us no guide as to its rulings on any of the issues, or to the findings

or conclusions of law which explain the bases for the district court’s denial of

Broadwater’s § 2255 motion.

This does not mean that a fuller explanation is required in every summary

denial of a § 2255 motion. For example, there are undoubtedly simple § 2255 motions

which obviously have no merit because the allegations, even if true, would not afford

relief. Expeditious handling of other § 2255 motions may justify relief without
4

explanation because a simple review of a short record shows that there is no factual

basis for the allegations.

Where, as here, however, there may potentially be some merit to the allegations

if supported by the record, and the record consists of voluminous files and transcripts,

an adequate appellate review of the basis for the district court’s decision requires

something more than a mere summary denial of the § 2255 motion by the district

court.

As we said in Hart: “[t]his does not mean that an evidentiary hearing must now

be held, however. The district court, by its own action or by requiring a response from

the government, may be able to gain sufficient information to dispose of appellant’s

allegations without a hearing.” Hart, 565 F.2d at 362. We are mindful of the fact that

the same judge who denied this § 2255 motion also conducted the several-day trial

of the case in 1997, and that some situations may be resolved by the district court’s

personal knowledge or recollection. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495

(1962). When that is not revealed in the order, however, there is no way for an

appellate court to review the accuracy of that recollection or whether that is sufficient

upon which to base a denial of relief. Here, we cannot tell whether the district court’s

ruling was premised upon its review of the files, records, and transcripts of the

proceedings, or in whole or in part upon its own recollection of events. 
5

VACATED AND REMANDED