United States v. Jeanie Henges , 591 F. App'x 287 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 13-41077      Document: 00512916831         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/27/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-41077
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 27, 2015
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JEANIE MARIE SMITH HENGES,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:12-CR-121-1
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Jeanie Marie Smith Henges
    pleaded guilty to seven counts of bank fraud. Henges was sentenced to 24
    months in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. She appeals,
    asserting primarily that ineffectiveness of counsel rendered her plea invalid.
    The district court did not err by finding that Henges’s plea was not
    induced by any promises outside the plea agreement that the Government
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 13-41077    Document: 00512916831     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/27/2015
    No. 13-41077
    would not oppose a sentence of home confinement or would not issue a press
    release about her conviction. See United States v. Long, 
    722 F.3d 257
    , 261 (5th
    Cir. 2013); DeVille v. Whitley, 
    21 F.3d 654
    , 658 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,
    counsel was not ineffective for failing to have those promises memorialized.
    See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687 (1984).
    Neither was retained counsel ineffective for being absent from Henges’s
    first sentencing hearing due to ankle surgery and complications. He provided
    substitute counsel, resolution of a contentious restitution issue was continued,
    and the sentencing hearing was reopened to allow retained counsel to make
    whatever arguments he might have made at the original sentencing. Even if
    counsel were deemed deficient for not appearing at the first sentencing, no
    prejudice resulted. See Hill v. Lockhart, 
    474 U.S. 52
    , 59 (1985); United States
    v. Grammas, 
    376 F.3d 433
    , 437-38 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Henges offers only a fatally vague and conclusory contention that
    retained counsel’s health problems and medication resulted in ineffective
    assistance. She fails to show how counsel’s problems had any specific effect on
    the proceedings, and her conclusional assertions are “insufficient to overcome
    the strong presumption of competency and the high burden of actual prejudice
    required to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.” Carter v. Johnson, 
    131 F.3d 452
    , 464 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Henges has not shown that the district court abused its broad discretion
    by denying her motion to withdraw the plea, whether her motion was based on
    ineffectiveness of counsel or any other factor. See United States v. Carr, 
    740 F.2d 339
    , 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
    2