IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60062

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARIO LADELL MCCLINTON, also known as Yo, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC 3:13-CV-275

Before CLEMENT, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant Mario Ladell McClinton appeals the district court’s denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. Because McClinton’s sworn statements 

are inconsistent with his § 2255 claim, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying McClinton’s claim without an evidentiary hearing. We 

therefore AFFIRM.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60062 Document: 00515063706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2019
No. 17-60062

2

I. Background

McClinton was charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with 

intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. In the middle of trial, he entered a 

guilty plea. Pursuant to the plea agreement, McClinton waived the right to 

collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. During the change-of-plea 

hearing, McClinton stated that he was “pleased” with his counsel’s 

representation. In support of his late plea, he said “he wouldn’t have came this 

far if [he] would have seen what [he] needed to see.” When asked if “anyone 

promised [him] what the sentence would be,” McClinton answered, “No.” 

In calculating McClinton’s sentence guidelines, the presentence report 

(PSR) applied the career offender guideline enhancement based on McClinton’s 

prior convictions. As a result, McClinton’s guideline range was 210 to 262 

months. McClinton objected to the PSR, including the career offender 

enhancement, but the district court overruled his objection. The district court 

adopted the PSR’s sentencing recommendation but granted the Government’s 

motion for a downward departure based on McClinton’s cooperation and the 

plea agreement. McClinton was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment. 

McClinton then filed a timely § 2255 motion in which he claimed 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He asserted that his guilty plea had been 

involuntary due to “incorrect legal advice” provided by his attorney regarding 

his plea. McClinton alleged that he had learned from the Government’s 

attorney “[i]n the midst” of his trial “about career offender status.” He alleged 

that his attorney advised him that, if he accepted the plea agreement, the 

Government “would not seek to have him sentenced as a ‘career offender.’”

McClinton also alleged that his attorney informed him he would receive a 

sentence of approximately seven years, but his actual sentence was twice that. 

 Case: 17-60062 Document: 00515063706 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2019
No. 17-60062

3

McClinton stated that he “would not have entered a plea of guilty” if not for 

the erroneous advice he received. 

The district court denied McClinton § 2255 relief without conducting an 

evidentiary hearing. It determined that McClinton could not demonstrate 

ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s advice to plead guilty 

because it did not prejudice McClinton. The district court reasoned that if 

McClinton had been convicted at trial, he would have faced a sentencing range 

of 360 months to life, as opposed to the 168 months he received following his 

guilty plea. The district court also determined, based in part on McClinton’s 

sworn statements at the plea hearing, that McClinton could not show that he 

would have proceeded to a jury verdict but for his trial attorney’s allegedly 

deficient advice. McClinton’s timely appeal followed.

II. Discussion

We review a district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing on a 

§ 2255 motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Edwards, 442 

F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006). A district court may deny an evidentiary hearing 

“if the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner 

is entitled to no relief.” United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th 

Cir. 1992) (per curiam). No hearing is required unless (1) the record, as 

supplemented by the trial judge’s personal knowledge or recollection, does not 

conclusively negate the facts alleged in support of the claim for § 2255 relief, 

and (2) the movant would be entitled to postconviction relief as a legal matter 

if his factual allegations were true. See Friedman v. United States, 588 F.2d 

1010, 1014–15 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). If there are no “independent 

indicia of the likely merit” of McClinton’s allegations, a hearing is not required. 

Edwards, 442 F.3d at 264.

McClinton contends that the district court erred in denying his § 2255 

motion without holding an evidentiary hearing because the record does not 

 Case: 17-60062 Document: 00515063706 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2019
No. 17-60062

4

conclusively negate his entitlement to relief. McClinton asserts that he is 

entitled to relief because, but for his counsel’s erroneous advice regarding the 

plea agreement, he would have proceeded with his trial and not been sentenced 

as a career offender. McClinton highlights the fact that he initially elected a 

jury trial. 

A defendant has a right under the Sixth Amendment to the competent 

advice of counsel during “the plea-bargaining process.” Lafler v. Cooper, 566 

U.S. 156, 162 (2012). The standard for claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel in this context was articulated in Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 

1965 (2017). There, the Supreme Court held that the district court should 

examine whether, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have 

pleaded guilty and instead insisted on going to trial. Id. In Lee, the defendant’s 

main concern was avoiding deportation. Id. at 1967–68. Therefore, despite his 

lack of defenses to the challenged crime, he would have proceeded to trial 

rather than pleading guilty if he had been properly advised of the fact that a 

conviction would ensure deportation. Thus, he was entitled to relief for 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 1969. However, the Court noted that 

the necessary proof to support this conclusion could not come from “post hoc

assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his 

attorney’s deficiencies.” Id. at 1967. Instead, “contemporaneous evidence” is 

the key. Id; see also United States v. Crain, 877 F.3d 637, 650 (5th Cir. 2017) 

(explaining that “self-serving post hoc assertions about how [the defendant] 

would have pled” do not negate the contemporaneous comments at the plea 

hearing).

The “contemporaneous evidence” here, found in McClinton’s change-ofplea hearing, demonstrates that he made several sworn statements that are 

inconsistent with his post hoc assertions in his § 2255 claim. Sworn statements 

in open court are entitled to a strong presumption of truthfulness. United 

 Case: 17-60062 Document: 00515063706 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/05/2019
No. 17-60062

5

States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, we will 

not allow a defendant to contradict testimony given under oath at a plea 

hearing. See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court thoroughly questioned McClinton to ensure he understood 

the plea agreement and its consequences. When asked about his attorney’s 

representation, McClinton stated that he was “pleased,” and, clearly referring 

to his late discovery of the career offender laws, he “wouldn’t have c[o]me this 

far if [he] would have seen what [he] needed to see.” This latter remark 

contradicts the notion that he would have pursued a trial knowing that the 

career offender status would put him at risk of approximately 200 more 

months1 of imprisonment than the result he obtained. The district court 

therefore concluded that McClinton could not show that he would have finished 

trial absent his attorney’s advice to plead guilty. Further, when asked whether 

anyone had promised him what his sentence would be, McClinton said “No.” 

The plea agreement itself, which McClinton signed, also expressly stated that 

“no promise or representation whatsoever has been made to McClinton as to 

what punishment the court might impose.”

McClinton’s statements contradict his claim that he would not have 

taken the plea deal but for his attorney’s advice. The “contemporaneous 

evidence” conclusively negates his “post hoc” assertions. Thus, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying McClinton an evidentiary hearing 

on his § 2255 claim. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

1 If McClinton had not pleaded and was found guilty by the jury, his guideline range 

would have been 360 months to life. 

 Case: 17-60062 Document: 00515063706 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/05/2019