[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 99-2086

CHRISTIAN CASTRO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Christian Castro on brief pro se. Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

September 6, 2000 Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record

and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm.

Even if appellant Christian Castro (“Castro”) had

adequately alleged in his § 2255 petition that his counsel

fell below the standard of care – a matter we do not decide

– Castro wholly failed to establish that any alleged

failure on counsel’s part caused him prejudice. Strickland

v. Washington,

(1984). “A defendant who

enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under

[U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1] as a matter of right.” See U.S.S.G. §

3E1.1, app. note 3; see also United States v. Muriel,

(1 st Cir. 1997). Rather, the court must

consider a number of factors, including whether defendant

“truthfully admit[s] the conduct comprising the offense[] of

conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, app. note 1(a). Castro

indicates he would only have been willing to enter into a

plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford,

(1970), so he has failed to allege he would have “truthfully

admitted” that he had conspired to distribute cocaine base.

-2- Further, he has not alleged that he could have

earned a section 3E1.1 reduction by pointing to any other

factor listed in application note 1; and we see no

indication in the record that he could have supported any

such allegation. See generally United States v. Burns,

(1 st Cir. 1991) (defendant entered Alford

plea; court properly denied section 3E1.1 reduction where

evidence as a whole indicated a lack of acceptance of

responsibility). Thus, Castro failed to show any reasonable

probability that the result at his sentencing would have

been different had his attorney convinced him to plead

guilty, Strickland,

; so the lower court did

not err in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See United States

v. McGill,

(1st Cir. 1993) (“[A] § 2255

motion may be denied without a hearing as to those

allegations which, if accepted as true, entitled the movant

to no relief. . . .”).

Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).

-3-