Unpublished Dispositiondavid Conrad Buelow, Petitioner-appellant, v. David L. Baker, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 928 F.2d 404 (6th Cir. 1991)

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and the record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

David Conrad Buelow, an Ohio inmate, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged the constitutionality of a 1987 conviction for rape. The matter was referred to a magistrate who recommended that the petition be dismissed. The district court adopted the recommendation over Buelow's objections and this appeal followed. The parties have briefed the issues, Buelow acting without counsel.

Upon consideration, we agree with the district court's disposition of the case. Buelow claimed that his guilty plea was the product of ineffective trial counsel. It was thus incumbent upon Buelow to demonstrate that his trial counsel was deficient under the standards set forth in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The record is devoid of any suggestion that trial counsel acted to Buelow's detriment in recommending the guilty plea. The petition is meritless.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.