Jose Perez v. United States

facts supporting each ground”). We consider those allegations together with “the

files and records of the case” to determine whether Perez has established the

elements of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea

bargaining process. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). To prevail on that claim, Perez had

to state sufficient facts to show: (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,”

and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Perez failed to make this showing.

A

Perez contends that his counsel failed adequately to explain the terms of the

Government’s plea offer. However, Perez’s declaration acknowledges that his

counsel told him about the key provision of the offer—that it provided for a 10-

year sentence, which was well below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment.

2 Perez has not identified any other material term of the offer that should have been

communicated to him but was not, nor has he pleaded any facts to show that any

such omitted details would have caused him to accept the offer. Hill v. Lockhart,

474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Beyond that, Perez notes only that his counsel…