Case: 19-13445 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13445
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cv-80757-WPD
MICHAEL SAMUELS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 1, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-13445 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Michael Samuels, a Florida prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Samuels argues that he was entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
affirm.
We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing in a postconviction
proceeding for abuse of discretion. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297
(11th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, we will not reverse unless the district court
misapplied the law or made findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. Id. An
evidentiary hearing is unnecessary unless it would “enable [a postconviction
petitioner] to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle
[him] to federal habeas relief.” Crowe v. Hall, 490 F.3d 840, 847 (11th Cir. 2007).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied
Samuels’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Samuels argues that the district
court erroneously discredited his allegations that trial counsel failed to enforce a
promise made off-the-record by the prosecutor to request a sentence of 138 months
of imprisonment. See Gallego v. United States, 174 F.3d 1196, 1197–99 (11th Cir.
1999). But the district court determined that the record of Samuels’s guilty plea
proceedings established that he negotiated for his sentence of 180 months of
imprisonment. Samuels acknowledged in his written plea agreement that he would
be sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment. His agreement stated that “[n]o one
2
Case: 19-13445 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 3 of 3
has made any promises or representations to me, other than those in the written
plea agreement” to plead guilty and that “[t]he only promises or representations
made to me are those listed in the plea agreement.” During the change of plea
hearing, the prosecutor stated that Samuels had agreed to serve 180 months of
imprisonment, and Samuels confirmed that understanding of their agreement.
Because the record affirmatively contradicted the allegations in Samuels’s petition,
Samuels was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
We AFFIRM the denial of Samuels’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
3