Cadena v. United States, 4:17-cv-00575

Michael Cadena was indicted (Aug 13, 2014) on one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >50 grams of methamphetamine; arrested Nov 16, 2014.
He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement on Jan 9, 2015; under oath he stated no promises had induced his plea and that he understood the advisory Guidelines and potential penalties.
Sentenced on Apr 24, 2015 to 150 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release; Fifth Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Cadena filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising four grounds: three ineffective-assistance claims (inadequate investigation, involuntary/uninformed plea, counsel’s alleged promise of 5–7 years) and one claim that his sentence was substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a).
The motion lacked supporting evidence or affidavits; record (rearraignment transcript and PSR proceedings) contradicted Cadena’s assertions.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — investigation	Cadena: counsel failed to investigate facts adequately	Government: allegations are conclusory; record shows counsel litigated PSR objections	Denied — no evidentiary support or prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance — involuntary/unknowing plea	Cadena: counsel induced an involuntary plea	Government: Cadena swore at rearraignment that plea was voluntary and informed	Denied — sworn statements control; no independent proof of coercion
Ineffective assistance — promise of 5–7 yr sentence	Cadena: counsel repeatedly promised a 5–7 year term	Government: court informed Cadena of statutory range; no record of such a promise	Denied — inconsistent with on-the-record warnings and plea colloquy
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Cadena: sentence was greater than necessary under § 3553(a)	Government: issues raised (or could have been raised) on direct appeal; sentence was appropriate	Denied — merits were addressed on appeal or are foreclosed; record supports sentence

Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (procedural default standard for collateral review)
Shaid v. United States, 937 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1991) (requirements for § 2255 collateral review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
Cervantes v. United States, 132 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir. 1998) (proof required for alleged promises inducing a plea)
Fuller v. United States, 769 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1985) (evidentiary thresholds on collateral claims)
Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (limitations on § 2255 as substitute for appeal)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (prejudice must be substantial; not merely conceivable)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (Strickland scrutiny standards)
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (plea voluntary and knowing standard)