Estremera v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying without hearing defendant’s habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, where defendant asserted that his counsel failed to appropriately explain terms of govt.’s last plea agreement offer, such that defendant would have accepted said offer because it did not actually require that he testify against fellow gang members, and because he could have received lower sentence had he accepted said offer. Contentions in defendant’s affidavit with respect to what he would have done had he been properly apprised of true terms of plea agreement could not be resolved without evidentiary hearing, and, although written plea offer was actually shown to defendant, defendant alleged that counsel did not clarify that term “cooperation” in offer did not require that he give testimony against fellow gang members. Should Dist. Ct. grant defendant’s habeas petition on remand, it will be free to fashion remedy that is something other than directive for govt. to offer same last plea agreement that defendant had rejected. Ct. further found that govt.’s contention that instant habeas petition was untimely could not be resolved without hearing, where defendant alleged that lack of prison library access over period of time constituted sufficient “impediment” under section 2255(f)(2) so as to render petition timely.