This "waiver includes all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, except insofar as the alleged ineffectiveness relates to the voluntariness of the giving of the guilty plea." United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 441 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smith v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 7.

“[A defendant] who does not receive reasonably effective assistance of counsel in connection with his decision to plead guilty cannot be said to have made that decision either intelligently or voluntarily.” Mason v. Balcom, 531 F.2d 717, 725 (5th Cir.1976) (citing McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969)); U.S. v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 440–41 (5th Cir.2008) (holding that a lawyer's duty is to provide the client an understanding of the law and to give competent advice, and that if the lawyer is unfamiliar with the relevant facts and law, the client's guilty plea cannot be knowingly and voluntarily made because it will not represent an informed choice). Conclusion

On an appeal from a denial of a § 2255 motion, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 2008). We review a district court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion for abuse of discretion.

R. Governing § 2255 Proc. U.S. Dist. Cts. 8; United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2008). An evidentiary hearing is not warranted when the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief.

The decision to deny Newton's § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for abuse-of-discretion. E.g., United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 442 (5th Cir. 2008). As discussed infra, the record was adequately developed, including Newton's "solemn declarations in open court"; the record supported the determination his plea was voluntary; and Newton failed to show the likely merit of his claims. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.

In the context of a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court of appeals reviews a district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006)). The review of a district court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion is for abuse of discretion; the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the appellant produced "independent indicia of the likely merit of [his] allegations."

"[A] search is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying a traffic violation stop when the search in question occurs after the time required for an officer to issue a citation (or decide against doing so) and to complete a `computer check' for outstanding warrants and vehicle theft." U.S. v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2008). In U.S. v. Santiago, 310 F.3d 341-342 (5th Cir. 2004), the court stated that during a traffic stop, an officer can 1) request a driver's license, insurance papers, and vehicle registration; 2) run a computer check and issue a citation; and, 3) detain and question the subjects of the stop while a license check is being run.

In an appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review a district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 2008). We review the district court's decision not to grant an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.

On review of a district court's denial of § 2255 relief, this court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

“‘[O]nce a guilty plea has been entered, all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings against a defendant are waived,' and the waiver ‘includes all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, except insofar as the alleged ineffectiveness relates to the voluntariness of the giving of the guilty plea.'” United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 441 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Smith v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1983)).