UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6658
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TANESHA BANNISTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-40; 3:10-cv-70277-CMC)
Submitted: February 17, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tanesha Bannister, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C. Moore,
Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tanesha Bannister appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion, in which she asserted that counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to: (1) communicate a plea offer; (2)
explain fully how relevant conduct and acceptance of
responsibility would affect her case; and (3) explain fully the
application of the 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) enhancement and how it
would affect Bannister’s statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
We previously granted Bannister a certificate of appealability
on these issues. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required under
§ 2255 unless it is clear from the pleadings, files, and records
that a movant is not entitled to relief. United States v.
Witherspoon, 231 F.3d 923, 925-27 (4th Cir. 2000); Raines v.
United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529-30 (4th Cir. 1970). Whether an
evidentiary hearing is necessary is best left to the sound
discretion of the district court. Raines, 423 F.2d at 530.
However, when a movant presents a colorable Sixth Amendment
claim showing disputed facts involving inconsistencies beyond
the record, a hearing is mandated. See United States v. Magini,
973 F.2d 261, 264 (4th Cir. 1992); see also Raines, 423 F.2d at
530 (“There will remain . . . a category of petitions, usually
2
involving credibility, that will require an evidentiary hearing
in open court.”).
Because whether counsel’s performance fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness turns on credibility
determinations, and since it is not apparent, given the current
state of the record, that Bannister suffered no prejudice if
counsel’s performance was deficient, we vacate the district
court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3