USA V. JAMES LEWIS, JR., No. 10-55618 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 17 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-55618 D.C. Nos. 8:10-cv-00261-CJC 8:04-cr-00016-CJC-1 v. JAMES PAUL LEWIS, Jr., AKA Seal A, AKA James P. Lewis, Jr., MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, District Judge.** James P. Lewis appeals the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. Notwithstanding his counsel s sentencing prediction, the plea agreement, the prosecutor, and the district court fully informed Lewis that he could be sentenced to the statutory maximum of 30 years and that the district court retained ultimate discretion in sentencing Lewis to any reasonable sentence within that maximum. Because Lewis was fully apprised of his sentencing exposure, and his responses during the plea colloquy manifested his understanding of such exposure, Lewis claim that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis motion without an evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.