Michael A. Rosin v. United States, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7955

Michael Rosin, a former dermatologist, was convicted by a jury on 70 counts (health-care fraud and false statements) after a 17-day trial and sentenced to 264 months (22 years); direct appeal affirmed.
Rosin filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming trial counsel was ineffective for (a) grossly underestimating his likely sentence (telling him ~5–6 years) and (b) failing to pursue a plea bargain; he sought an evidentiary hearing.
Trial counsel (Van Vliet, Kehoe, Zimmerman-Keenan) submitted affidavits stating they warned Rosin about exposure, explored plea options, ran a mock jury, and that Rosin consistently and adamantly insisted on his innocence and refusal to plead.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding Rosin failed to allege prejudice; this court previously vacated and remanded once for application of the correct Strickland prejudice standard.
On remand the district court again denied relief without a hearing; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Rosin failed to show he would have pleaded guilty but for counsel’s alleged errors and that the record affirmatively contradicted his claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for underestimating sentence and not pursuing plea	Rosin: counsel told him ~5–6 years and did not advise of risk of a 22‑year sentence or pursue plea; he would have sought/accepted a plea if properly advised	Govt/counsel: counsels’ affidavits show they warned about exposure, ran mock trial, and Rosin repeatedly refused to consider pleading because he insisted on innocence	Held: Rosin failed to plead that he would have accepted a guilty plea; record shows he consistently refused to concede guilt, so no prejudice shown
Whether Rosin was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim	Rosin: competing affidavits create factual dispute warranting a hearing	Govt: record and counsels’ affidavits affirmatively contradict Rosin’s claim; no reasonable probability of different outcome	Held: No abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing; allegations are contradicted by the record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to plea-stage claims—must show would have pleaded guilty but for counsel’s errors)
Coulter v. Herring, 60 F.3d 1499 (Eleventh Circuit: defendant must show he would have accepted plea, not merely that counsel would have sought one)
Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708 (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing on § 2255 is abuse of discretion)
Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545 (claims affirmatively contradicted by the record do not require evidentiary hearing)