UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 95-40775
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL MATA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(C-94-CV-300)
June 27, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Mata, Jr., appeals from the district court’s denial of
his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mata argues that the record is insufficient
to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Mata
further argues that he was rendered ineffective assistance of
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
counsel because his counsel coerced him into entering a guilty
plea, failed to research and mount a proper defense, failed to
object to the alleged illegal search of his truck and the seizure
of the firearm, and failed to object to the Government’s
misstatements during the guilty plea regarding when the firearm was
found. Finally, Mata argues that the district court erred in
failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Mata’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction for “using” or “carrying” a firearm in violation of
§ 924(c) is foreclosed by his guilty plea. United States v. Broce,
488 U.S. 563, 569, 109 S. Ct. 757, 762, 102 L. Ed. 2d 927 (1989).
Insofar as Mata is challenging the factual basis for his plea in
light of the recent Supreme Court opinion in United States v.
Bailey, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 501, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (1995), we
hold that Bailey does not undermine Mata’s plea.2 Mata pleaded
guilty to both “using and carrying” a firearm in violation of
§ 924(c). The decision in Bailey only affected the definition of
“use” under the statute. See id. at 509. The facts underlying
Mata’s plea still support his conviction for carrying a firearm in
relation to a drug offense under § 924(c).3 See United States v.
2
The Supreme Court decided Bailey after the district court rejected
Mata’s § 2255 motion but prior to this appeal. We reject Mata’s claim without
deciding whether Bailey should be applied to § 2255 motions filed prior to the
decision in Bailey.
3
Mata admitted during his plea that he carried the gun to protect his
shipment of drugs, and the gun was found behind the driver’s seat in the sleeper
compartment of the truck.
-2-
Fike, No. 93-1797, 1996 WL 229346, at *12 (5th Cir. May 7, 1996)
(discussing 924(c) and holding that by “placing a gun under the
driver’s seat of a car, then driving the car to another location,
one has carried the gun”).
Mata’s remaining arguments are without merit. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an
evidentiary hearing on Mata’s claims. See United States v.
Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that
evidentiary hearing is not necessary where claims can be resolved
on the record and files before the district court). The district
court did not err in determining that Mata’s guilty plea was not
coerced. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S. Ct.
1621, 1629, 52 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1977) (holding that statements in
open court carry strong presumption of truth, and may not be
undermined by subsequent unsupported allegations). Mata’s counsel
was not ineffective for failing to research or present a defense to
his § 924(c) charge. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
690, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (holding that
to support a claim of ineffective assistance, defendant must show
that counsel’s performance was “outside the wide range of
professionally competent assistance”). Mata’s counsel was not
ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of the
firearm because the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
See United States v. Loaiza-Marin, 832 F.2d 867, 868-69 (5th Cir.
-3-
1987) (upholding inventory search which resulted in the discovery
of contraband). Finally, Mata has failed to establish that
counsel’s failure to object to the Government’s misstatements
during the guilty plea was in any way prejudicial. See Strickland,
466 U.S. at 697; 104 S. Ct. at 2069-70 (requiring the defendant to
demonstrate “prejudice” to succeed on a claim of ineffective
assistance).
We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Mata’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. Having done so, Mata’s motion for bail pending
appeal is DENIED.
-4-