Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID ANTHONY BATTLE, No. 25-1618 D.C. Nos. Petitioner - Appellant, 5:24-cv-01190-JGB 5:20-cr-00190-JGB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 27, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: R. NELSON and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MARTÍNEZ- OLGUÍN, District Judge.*** Petitioner-Appellant David Anthony Battle appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which sought to vacate his conviction and sentence on the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Araceli Martínez-Olguín, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. grounds that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We review a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion de novo, and denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gordon, 151 F.4th 1090, 1097 (9th Cir. 2025). We affirm. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must 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). If the defendant pleaded guilty, prejudice is demonstrated when there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). The district court did not err in rejecting Battle’s claim based on an asserted failure by his attorney to investigate his case. During his plea colloquy, Battle testified that he committed the robberies and that his attorney fully considered any defenses he might have. “Petitioner’s statements at the plea colloquy carry a strong presumption of truth.” Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 821 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Battle now asserts that he was not the robber captured in surveillance videos and therefore asked his attorney to contact several witnesses. According to Battle, his attorney did not interview any of those individuals. 2 25-1618 Battle’s uncorroborated declarations do not overcome the presumption that he truthfully testified that his attorney fully considered potential defenses. See United States v. Rivera-Ramirez, 715 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1983). Similarly, Battle has not demonstrated prejudice because he has not identified any grounds to support his claim that further investigation would have dissuaded him from pleading guilty. The district court also properly rejected Battle’s claim that his attorney failed to adequately explain the plea agreement. During his plea colloquy, the district court told Battle that it alone would decide his sentence, and that it could impose an above- or below-guidelines sentence. Battle testified that he understood and that no one promised or guaranteed what sentence he would receive if he pleaded guilty. Battle now asserts that his attorney told him that federal judges did not have discretion to impose a higher sentence than the range agreed to by the parties and implied that Battle would receive a five-year sentence. Battle’s statements are inherently contradictory, as he simultaneously contends that he was promised a five-year sentence while also understanding that he might be sentenced to an additional 30 months. Battle has not overcome the presumption that his plea colloquy statements were truthful, so he has not demonstrated deficient performance. See Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308, 1311 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Rubalcaba, 811 F.2d 491, 494 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled in irrelevant part by United States v. Gomez, 165 F.4th 1199, 1205–07 (9th Cir. 3 25-1618 2026) (en banc). And given that the plea colloquy would have corrected any confusion, Battle has not demonstrated prejudice. See Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 168 (9th Cir. 1990). Finally, because “the issue of credibility can be ‘conclusively decided on the basis of documentary testimony and evidence in the record,’” the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). AFFIRMED. 4 25-1618