Summary
remanding a § 2255 case where the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek "safety-valve" relief, when the record was unclear as to whether the petitioner met the criteria for such relief
Summary of this case from Brashear v. United StatesOpinion
No. 13-3646
02-19-2015
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Haldon Gilkes Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [Unpublished] Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Haldon Gilkes is serving a five-year prison term after pleading guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. He timely filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and the district court, without an evidentiary hearing, entered an order summarily denying his motion. This court granted Gilkes a certificate of appealability regarding his claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to seek safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
On appeal, Gilkes asserts, among other things, that he met all of the requirements to be eligible for safety-valve relief, and consequently he should have received a lower sentence. In response, the government concedes that Gilkes met four of the five criteria for safety-valve relief, but contends that the record is unclear as to whether he met the fifth criterion, which involves truthfully providing information to the government concerning the offense or related offenses. Accordingly, the government suggests that a remand to develop the record would be appropriate.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order as to this claim only, and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.