Martin v. U.S. 

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing without hearing defendant’s habeas petition alleging that his counsel was ineffective for failing to apprise him of applicable law, which, in turn, caused him to reject offer of 30-year sentence in exchange for plea agreement. While defendant argued that he would have accepted proffered plea agreement if he would have been correctly apprised of applicable law, dismissal of habeas petition was appropriate where defendant presented nothing but his bare assertion that govt. had actually offered him any plea agreement.