United States v. Angelos, 417 F. App'x 786

Angelos appeals district court’s denial of his §2255 motion to vacate, with a COA limited to three issues.
Angelos was convicted by jury of drug, firearms, and money laundering offenses, including three §924(c) counts.
The district court sentenced him to 55 years plus one day; on direct appeal this court rejected his challenges.
Angelos challenged counsel’s effectiveness in plea negotiations and at trial; the district court held an evidentiary hearing only on the plea claim.
The panel affirmed the denial of §2255 relief, rejecting the claimed ineffective assistance and withholding COA on other issues.
Procedural bars applied to certain claims, with consideration denied absent cause, prejudice, or miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance during plea negotiations	Angelos contends Mooney was deficient and prejudicial in plea negotiations.	Mooney adequately explained options and risks; decision to accept or reject pleas rested with Angelos.	No deficient performance or prejudice; plea negotiations were reasonably conducted.
Ineffective assistance at trial	Mooney failed to adequately impeach key witnesses and prepare for trial.	Mooney cross-examined effectively, exposed inconsistencies, and presented bias and other defenses.	No deficient performance or prejudice; trial representation was reasonable.
Evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance-at-trial claims	Additional evidentiary development was warranted.	District court did not abuse discretion; no need for expanded hearing given failures on Strickland standard.	No abuse of discretion; no expanded evidentiary hearing required.
Procedural bars and COA on barred claims	Second/Fifth/Eighth Amendment and other claims should be considered on the merits.	Claims were procedurally defaulted; exceptions not shown.	COA denied for barred claims; appeals concerning those issues dismissed.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (requires informed advice in plea negotiations)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice component in guilty-plea cases)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (COA standard involves threshold merits review)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (credibility findings entitled to deference)
United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for §2255 rulings; evidentiary hearing scope)
United States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413 (10th Cir. 1996) (clear-error review of credibility determinations)