Court Opinion

ID: 9556608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 21:01:22.49196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:18.589763
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7553      Doc: 32         Filed: 08/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7553

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARK IAN GAVER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00640-RDB-1; 1:21-cv-00981-RDB)

        Submitted: July 28, 2023                                          Decided: August 16, 2023

        Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mark Ian Gaver, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Keith Moore, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7553       Doc: 32           Filed: 08/16/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Mark Ian Gaver appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion.      We granted a partial certificate of appealability and ordered the

        Government to respond on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by

        denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Gaver’s claim that his trial counsel provided

        ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise him during the plea process. We now

        affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “When, as in this case, the district court denies § 2255 relief without an evidentiary

        hearing, the nature of the court’s ruling is akin to a ruling on a motion for summary

        judgment, and the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the § 2255 movant.”

        United States v. Mayhew, 995 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a “defendant must

        show that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance

        prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To satisfy

        the performance prong, “the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below

        an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. To show prejudice, Gaver must show

        that “but for the ineffective assistance of counsel, there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that he

        would have accepted a plea, that the court would have approved its terms, and that the

        resulting conviction or sentence ‘would have been less severe’ than that actually imposed.”

        Mayhew, 995 F.3d at 177 (quoting Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 164 (2012)). In

        evaluating prejudice, courts may not rely solely on “post hoc assertions from a defendant

        about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s deficiencies. Judges should instead

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7553       Doc: 32          Filed: 08/16/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        look to contemporaneous evidence to substantiate a defendant’s expressed preferences.”

        Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357, 369 (2017).

               In his § 2255 motion, Gaver briefly contended that “there is a probability that he

        may have accepted the plea agreement” that the Government offered him if his trial counsel

        had informed him of the reduced sentencing exposure he would face under the plea

        agreement as compared to what he would face if he went to trial. But this assertion is not

        substantiated by any contemporaneous evidence. Thus, even assuming, without deciding,

        that counsel’s performance was deficient, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

        declining to hold an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively rebuts Gaver’s

        allegations of prejudice.

               On the first day of trial, the district court confirmed that the Government had offered

        Gaver a plea agreement, which Gaver had rejected. Gaver first protested that he was

        unaware of any plea offer; he later alleged that he was generally aware of an offer “of some

        sort” but had not read the plea agreement itself. After outlining the terms of the proffered

        agreement, the district court confirmed that Gaver was aware of its terms and still intended

        to reject it. Gaver did not ask to belatedly accept the plea offer or to discuss it further with

        counsel. He did not contradict the district court’s statement that it was clear that, even if

        the Government were willing to offer the same plea agreement that day, Gaver would reject

        it. The record therefore conclusively rebuts Gaver’s allegations of prejudice because it is

        devoid of any contemporaneous evidence that substantiates Gaver’s passing assertion that

        he “may have accepted” the plea offer if he had been properly advised. Accordingly, we

        affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying relief on this claim. See Tyler v.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7553     Doc: 32           Filed: 08/16/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

        Hooks, 945 F.3d 159, 170 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that this court may affirm for any

        reason apparent from the record).

              We previously denied a certificate of appealability as to Gaver’s remaining claims.

        See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly,

        we dismiss that portion of the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                              AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                     4