Eddie D. Smith v. United States of America

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0154n.06
Filed: February 27, 2006
No. 04-6218
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE D. SMITH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
___________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BEFORE: KENNEDY, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Federal prison guard Eddie Smith was charged with one count of perjury and eight counts
of sexual misconduct offenses involving female inmates at a federal medical center. The
prosecution offered to drop all other charges if Smith pled guilty to perjury; in return, the
prosecution offered to recommend a maximum sentence of twenty months in prison. Smith refused
to consider the plea offer, forcefully maintained his innocence, went to trial, was convicted on nearly
all charges, and was sentenced to 262 months in prison. Smith appealed, and this Court affirmed
his convictions.
Smith filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, claiming inter alia that his counsel rendered
constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to advise him to take the plea and failing to fully

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-6218
Smith v. United States
- 2 -
advise him of the relative risks and sentencing exposure of going to trial versus accepting the plea
offer. The district court denied the motion without a hearing, holding that (1) counsel’s performance
was not deficient, and (2) even if it had been deficient, Smith failed to show that he was prejudiced,
i.e. that he would have taken the plea if he had been advised as he contends he should have been
advised. Smith appealed, and we vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. After the
hearing, the district court denied Smith’s motion again.
After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this Court determines
that a panel opinion further addressing the issues raised would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We
therefore affirm the district court’s decision for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --