Buckner v. United States, 3:24-cv-00048

Petitioner was indicted and later pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
During the plea colloquy, the court ensured Petitioner understood the charges, plea agreement, sentencing guidelines, and his rights.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) revealed a sentencing range (51–63 months) higher than what was anticipated in the plea agreement (27–33 months) due to the presence of a large-capacity magazine.
Petitioner confirmed at sentencing that he had received and reviewed the PSR with counsel and stated it was accurate.
Petitioner did not appeal but later filed a § 2255 motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds.
The government responded, seeking and receiving an affidavit from Petitioner's counsel (after a court order waiving privilege) which contradicted Petitioner’s claims; the court denied the § 2255 motion without a hearing and declined a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel failed to provide or review PSR with Petitioner	Counsel did not give Petitioner a copy of the PSR or address errors in it	Petitioner confirmed under oath he received, read, and reviewed PSR; offered no errors	No deficiency or prejudice; claim denied
Counsel failed to review plea agreement with Petitioner	Counsel did not provide or discuss plea agreement	Petitioner confirmed under oath he read and understood it with counsel	Claim refuted by record; denied
Counsel failed to warn Petitioner of potential higher sentence	Petitioner was not told court could impose higher sentence than plea agreement stated	Petitioner told in colloquy that court not bound by plea agreement's guideline range	No prejudice; court’s own explanation cured error
Counsel failed to adequately meet/inform/develop defense	Counsel did not meet sufficiently or keep Petitioner informed or develop a defense	Petitioner gave no specifics; record shows briefings occurred; no defense identified	No prejudice or deficiency; claim denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (ineffective assistance claim in plea context requires showing of prejudice)
U.S. v. Barr, 960 F.3d 906 (statements in Rule 11 colloquy presumed true)
U.S. v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825 (court may reject post-conviction claims contradicted by plea colloquy declarations)
Galbraith v. United States, 313 F.3d 1001 (counsel presumed reasonably proficient, must show deficiency and prejudice)