Opinion ID: 171197
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Falsity of Declarations

Text: Rodriguez-Chavez argues the government presented insufficient evidence -5- showing the statements in his § 2255 motion were false. He asserts the statements were not false but merely misleading because they failed to identify which counsel never spoke to him about the offense and which plea agreement he was forced to sign. We disagree. The district court concluded the counsel referred to in the § 2255 motion was Gradert. This is a reasonable inference. Both the § 2255 motion and Rodriguez-Chavez’s brief in support refer to the “counsel who never spoke to [him] concerning the instant offense” as the counsel who resigned from representing him. Gradert is the only counsel who resigned. In any event, whether the motion was referring to Gradert or Henry is immaterial. Both attorneys testified they spoke with Rodriguez-Chavez concerning the offense and Rodriguez-Chavez himself testified Henry spoke with him about the offense and he was pleased with Henry’s representation. While Rodriguez-Chavez testified Gradert never discussed the offense with him, the district court found his testimony was not credible and apparently chose to believe Gradert instead. We will not second guess the court’s credibility determinations. United States v. Youngpeter, 986 F.2d 349, 352-53 (10th Cir. 1993) (“An appellate court may not decide the credibility of witnesses as that is the exclusive task of the fact trier . . . . [When there is conflicting testimony,] [i]t is for the [trier of fact] to decide which witnesses to believe and which not. Once the [trier of fact] has spoken, -6- this court may not reweigh the credibility of the witnesses.”). 2 Similarly, it is immaterial which plea agreement is being referred to in the § 2255 motion. There were only two plea agreements in this case: the proposed plea agreement negotiated by Gradert and the modified proposed plea agreement negotiated by Henry. Both attorneys testified they did not force or coerce Rodriguez-Chavez into signing either agreement. In fact, Rodriguez-Chavez did not sign the proposed agreement negotiated by Gradert. And, there is no indication he was forced to sign the modified proposed agreement negotiated by Henry. Indeed, such finding would be directly contrary to Rodriguez-Chavez’s own statements made under oath at the change of plea hearing and in his Petition to Plead Guilty that it was his decision to plead guilty, he was satisfied with Henry’s assistance, he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and he was doing so freely and voluntarily. There is more than sufficient evidence demonstrating Rodriguez-Chavez’s statements in his § 2255 motion were false. 2 Rodriguez-Chavez suggests the counsel referred to in the § 2255 motion was AFPD John Henderson, who represented Rodriguez-Chavez at his initial appearance. There is absolutely no support for this argument. Only Gradert and Henry were listed as Rodriguez-Chavez’s attorneys in the § 2255 motion; Henderson was not mentioned. Henderson was never appointed to represent Rodriguez-Chavez nor was he involved in any plea negotiations; he only appeared at the initial appearance because Gradert was not available. This argument also contradicts Rodriguez-Chavez’s representations to the district court. Before trial, in his opening statement, defense counsel stated Rodriguez-Chavez’s § 2255 motion “was directed serially and only toward Steven Gradert.” (R. Supp. App. at 38.) -7-