Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Garcia

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 26, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MARIA GARCIA, Movant. Civil Action No. 14-cv-02353-REB.

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED § 2255 MOTION

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

Maria Garcia was convicted, pursuant to her guilty plea, of Possession of a Machine Gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). [#158].[1] She was sentenced to an 84-month term of imprisonment. [ Id. ]. Judgment was entered on September 17, 2013. [ Id. ]. On August 25, 2014, Ms. Garcia filed, pro se, a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody. [#168].

In the Motion, Ms. Garcia asserts that her trial counsel was ineffective for the following reasons: (1) "Evidence exists that would have mitigated the Petitioner's culpability had it been presented at sentencing" [ id. at 4]; (2) "Counsel failed to investigate key elements of the case that would have aided Petitioner in receiving a lower sentence" [ id. at 5]; and, (3) "Counsel was ineffective when he failed to communicate with the Petitioner" [ id. at 7]. Ms. Garcia does not allege any specific facts to support her claims.

To show ineffective assistance, Movant must demonstrate that her attorney performed deficiently and that she was prejudiced as a result. See United States v. Hendrix, 2014 WL 305871, at *1 (July 8, 2014) (unpublished) (reviewing district court's dismissal of § 2255 motion under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)).

Ms. Garcia's conclusory assertions about the failures of trial counsel are insufficient to show a Sixth Amendment violation under Strickland. See United States v. Moser, No. 13-3321, 2014 WL 2978498, at *3 (10th Cir. July 3, 2014) (unpublished); Snyder v. Addison, No. 03-6050, 89 F.App'x 675, 681 (10th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th Cir.1994) (conclusory allegations alone, without supporting factual averments, are insufficient to state a valid claim under § 2255); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that even pro se plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim can be based, and that conclusory allegations will not suffice).

Because Ms. Garcia is not represented by counsel, I will grant her an opportunity to file an amended § 2255 Motion in which she must allege specific facts to support her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Movant, Maria Garcia, shall file by September 29, 2014, an Amended § 2255 Motion that complies with the directives of this Order;

2. That the Amended Motion shall be filed on the court-approved form for filing a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which can be obtained from the Court's website at www.cod.uscourts.gov.; and

3. That if Ms. Garcia fails to file an Amended § 2255 Motion that complies with this order to the Court's satisfaction within the time allowed, the § 2255 Motion, filed on August 25, 2014 [#168], will be denied for the reasons discussed above.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.