IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BLADIMIR RIASCOS ARBODELA, )

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

Petitioner,

Criminal No. 10-00179-CG-B-1

v.

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-648-CG-B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation (Doc. 144) 

and Petitioner Bladimir Riascos Arbodela’s (“Arbodela”) objection thereto (Doc. 145). 

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Arbodela’s motion to vacate, set aside or 

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 115) be denied. After due 

and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue 

raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to 

which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, 

with the following additional discussion.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Arbodela’s objection fails to raise any issue not previously addressed in the 

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. Rather, Arbodela merely rehashes and 

expands upon previously considered and rejected arguments in connection with his 

Case 1:10-cr-00179-CG-N Document 146 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 4
2

§ 2255 claim.1 The only noteworthy deviation from Arbodela’s previous arguments is 

with regard to his assertion that his counsel was ineffective because she failed to 

present evidence of a polygraph examination that he had passed. 

In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant 

must establish (1) that his “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) that “the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687 (1984). “To prove prejudice, the movant must show that there is a 

reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been 

different but for counsel's unprofessional errors.” Patel v. United States, 252 F. 

App'x 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2007)

Arbodela’s allegations regarding the polygraph examination do not state his 

counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial. The record reflects that 

Arbodela’s counsel was not in possession of any polygraph results. (Doc. 119-2 at 2). 

Arbodela has not provided evidence that his passing of a polygraph would cause the 

government to dismiss the charges against him or that he even took a polygraph 

exam. Furthermore, it is well established in this circuit that polygraph examination 

results are generally inadmissible. See U.S. v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1536

(11th Cir. 1989); see also Pericles v. U.S., 2014 WL 2198514, * 5 (11th Cir. 2014)

(finding that the defense attorney’s performance was not deficient based on a failure 

 1 Arbodela’s objection reasserts the following arguments: (1) that his counsel misadvised 

him to accept the plea offer; (2) that his counsel did not ensure his family’s participation in 

the witness protection program; and (3) that his counsel failed to inform him of the 

potential deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The Magistrate Judge fully addressed 

these arguments in her well reasoned Report and Recommendation. See Doc. 144. There is 

no need to repeat that analysis here.

Case 1:10-cr-00179-CG-N Document 146 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 4
3

to obtain polygraph result evidence that the attorney reasonably anticipated could 

not be used at trial).

Arbodela asserts that since he passed the polygraph exam, the indictment 

should be dismissed. However, Arbodela does not specifically allege that he is 

actually innocent of the charges to which he pled guilty. To the extent his

allegations could be construed as a claim of actual innocence, such claim is subject 

to dismissal. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1931 (2013) (holding that a 

“freestanding claim of actual innocence” is not a valid legal claim). To the extent 

such claim is cognizable on collateral review, Arbodela’s claim nonetheless fails on 

its merits. Any claim of actual innocence is barred by Arbodela’s plea agreement

and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy, during which he admitted his 

guilt and acknowledged there was adequate evidence to convict him of conspiring to 

possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Doc. 139). 

Arbodela also acknowledged that no promises apart from the agreement had been 

made to him. Id. at 7. As there is no evidence that Arbodela’s representations 

during the plea colloquy were untruthful or involuntary, any claim of actual 

innocence must be dismissed. 

The court has considered Arbodela’s arguments, and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court finds that the Magistrate 

Judge properly denied all § 2255 claims raised by Arbodela. The Magistrate Judge 

also properly rejected Arbodela’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

Case 1:10-cr-00179-CG-N Document 146 Filed 09/02/14 Page 3 of 4
4

CONCLUSION

It is ORDERED that the motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence 

under 28. U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 115) filed by Bladimir Riascos Arbodela is hereby 

DENIED. It is also ORDERED that this action be dismissed, and that judgment be 

entered in favor of the Respondent, the United States of America, and against the 

Petitioner, Bladimir Riascos Arbodela. The court further finds that Arbodela is not 

entitled to issuance of a Certificate of Appealability, and, therefore, is not entitled to 

appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cr-00179-CG-N Document 146 Filed 09/02/14 Page 4 of 4