United States v. O'Quinn

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMMY RAY O’QUINN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-50; CA-04-251-1)
Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sammy Ray O’Quinn, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Ray O’Quinn appeals from the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We
previously granted a certificate of appealability as to O’Quinn’s
sole issue on appeal: whether his attorney provided ineffective
assistance with respect to the government’s plea offer. After
receiving additional briefing on this issue, we now vacate the
district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
In his § 2255 motion, O’Quinn claimed that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to inform him
of a corrected plea agreement. He asserted that, had he seen the
corrected version, he would have pled guilty. O’Quinn submitted an
affidavit to this effect. Counsel filed an affidavit stating that
he reviewed the corrected plea agreement with O’Quinn, but that
O’Quinn wanted to go to trial with the hope of obtaining an
acquittal on one of the charges and thereby possibly receiving a
lesser sentence.
The district court may expand the record in a § 2255
proceeding to include letters, documents and affidavits. Raines v.
United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529-30 (4th Cir. 1970). Unless it is
clear from the record, as expanded, that the prisoner is not
entitled to relief, § 2255 makes an evidentiary hearing mandatory.
28 U.S.C. § 2255; Raines, 423 F.2d at 529. “[W]here the ultimate
- 2 -
resolution rests on a credibility determination, an evidentiary
hearing is especially warranted.” United States v. White, 366 F.3d
291, 302 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Raines, 423 F.2d at 530).
In denying § 2255 relief on this issue, the district
court determined that, even if counsel’s performance was deficient
with respect to the plea offer, O’Quinn suffered no prejudice
because he failed to show that, had he seen the revised plea offer,
he would have pled guilty. In making this determination, the lower
court relied on O’Quinn’s silence during the change of plea hearing
when the court discussed scheduling O’Quinn’s trial.
We find that O’Quinn’s silence in that setting is too
ambiguous to allow an inference of acquiescence to overcome his
affirmative act of attesting to statements to the contrary.
Rather, the conflicting statements in the affidavits submitted by
O’Quinn and counsel create a factual dispute requiring an
evidentiary hearing. See Raines, 423 F.2d at 530.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -