FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Oct obe r 3 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1163 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D

. C. D oc ke t N os. 02- 0002 2- CV -W CO -2 , 99- 0003 3- CR -0 2 TA MMY FA IR, Pe tit i one r - A p p el la nt,

ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, De fendant -A pp el l ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct obe r 3, 200 5)

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ta m m y Fair appeal s the district court’ s denial of her m otion to vacate, set

as ide , or c or re ct se nte nc e pur sua nt t o 28 U

. S. C. § 22 55. O n a ppe al , F ai r as se rt s th eThe district cour t did not designate, and F air doe s not make ar g uments relatingto, the 1 oth e r t wo c la ims

. 2 dis tr ic t co urt er

re d in its an al y sis of he r ine ff ec tiv e- as sis ta nc e- of

-c ouns el cl ai m . F ai r
ar gues she e sta

bli she d bo th tha t he r tr ia l a tto rn ey ’ s pe rf orm an ce w as de fe ct ive be ca use he f ai le d to a dvi se he r of he r ri ght to te sti fy in he r ow n de fe nse , an d th at she

wa s p re ju d i ce d b ec au s e h ert es t i m o n y wo u l dh av e c h an g ed t h e r es u l to f h ert ri al . We review“ a district court’ s finding s of fac t in a 28 U. S. C. § 225 5 proceeding for clear

erro r, a n d i t s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d e n o v o . ” G a r c i a v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 7 8 F

. 3d 1 210, 1212 ( 11t h C ir

. 200 2) ; se e al so W ill ia m s v. U nit ed St at es , 396 F. 3d 1340, 1341 ( 11t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s a me )

. A f

t e r t h o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. W e pr ev iou sly

a ff irm ed F ai r’ s 18 8-m ont h se nte nc e an d c onvi ct ion s f or po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m et ha m ph et am i n e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 841( a ) ( 1 ) , a n d m a i n t a i n i n g a p l a c e f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f m e t h a m p h e t a m ine , in violatio n o f 2 1 U. S. C. § 856 (a)( 1). United States v. Fair, 251 F.3d 162 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (T able). In her § 2255 m otion , F air ra ised three claim s of ineffec tive assistance of tr ia l c ouns el , onl y

one of w hic h w as de sig na te d inthe di st ric t’s ce rt if ic at e of ap pe al ab ili ty : w he the r Fa ir ’ s tr ia l a tto rn ey r en de re d inef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e by

f ai lin g to advise her that she had the right to testify in her own defe nse. 1I n order to preva il on a claim of inef fec tive assistance of counse l, a petitioner must show 2 (1) counsel’s perf

ormanc e fell below an objective standard of rea sonablene ss; a nd (2) but f

or t he de fi c ie nc y

in re pr e se ntatio n, the re is a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity tha t th e re su lt o f t

he pr oc e e din g wo uld h av e b ee nd i ff

er en t
. S t ri ck l an d , 4 6 6 U. S

. at 6 8 7 -8 8 , 6 9 4

. T o s at i s fy t h e d ef i ci en t p er fo rm an ce p ro n g, the petitioner ha s the burden to prove that counsel made err ors so serious that he w as not functioning as the “ counsel” g uara

nteed by the Six th Amendment. I d. at 687. The standa rd for counsel’s perf ormanc e under

Strickland is “re asonable ness under the prev ai ling pr ofessional norms.” I d. at 688-89. The r easona

bleness of c ounsel’s per formanc e is to be evaluated from counsel’s pe rspec tive a t th e tim e of the a lle g e d e rr or and in l ig ht o f a ll the c ir c ums tanc e s, and the sta nd ard of re vie w i s highly defe rential. See Mills v. Singletar y , 63 F.3d 999, 1020 ( 11th Cir. 1995)(quotation and citation omi tte d) . T o s a tis fy

the pr e jud ic e pr on g , a pe tit ion e r mus t sh ow that the re is a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, b ut f or c ouns e l’ s unp ro fe ssi on a l e rr or s, the re su lt of the pr oc e e din g wo uld have be e n d if

fe re nt. Strickland, 446 U.S. at 694.
3 Af t eran ev i d en t i ar y h ea ri n g , a twh i ch Fa i r, h ert ri al co u n s el , a n dh erh u s b an d ’s
tr ia l c ouns el te sti fi ed , the m ag istra te j udge en ter ed aRe port a nd R ec om

m en da tio n (R& R )

. App l y i ng t he f

a m i l i a r t w o- par tt e st

f or i ne f f e c t i ve a ss i st a nc e o f

c ouns el

enum er at ed

in Stri ck la nd v. W as hin gto n, 466 U

. S. 668, 104 S. Ct

. 2052 , 80 L

. E d. 2d 674 (1 984) , the m ag istra te j udge c onc lud ed tha t althoug h F ai r sa tis fi ed the 2 perform ance prong of Strickland by showing her counsel’s re p re sentation was deficient, Fair’ s proffer

of the testim ony

she would have provided if she had testified

w as “ ir re le va nt to the j ur

y ’ s de te rm ina tio n” of

gui lt. T his f

ind ing w as ba se d, a m ong oth er thi ngs, on ( 1) the spe cu la tiv e na tur e of Fa ir ’ s ar gum en t tha t t he te sti m ony w oul d ha ve m ad e a dif

fe re nc e, a nd ( 2) the gov er nm en t’ s cr oss -e xa m ina tio n of F ai r at the evidentiary

hearing on her § 2255 m otion , a fter w h i ch t he m agistrate j udge no ted

“ ce rt ai n c re dib ili ty

pr obl em s. ” Ba se d onF ai r’ s f ai lur e to s at isf

y he r burd en on the4

Stri ck la nd pr ej udi ce pr ong, the m ag istra te j udge re co m m en de d de nia l of

he r § 22 55

m oti on. T he dis tr ict c ourt a dopt ed the R& R i n part

a nd d en ie d F ai r’ s m oti on. I n it s
or de r, the dis tr ic t c ourt, appl y ing S tr ic kland, c onc lud ed the f oll ow ing : Given the fa cts, view ed from the perspective o f trial c ouns el, as they we re known to him at t he tim e o f th e representation, the court concludes that it is m ore likely

than not th at trial counsel followed his norm al pr ac tic e w ith pe tit ion er , tha t pe tit ion er kne w tha t sh e ha d ar igh t t o te sti fy , a nd tha t pe tit ion er al one de ci de d not to ex er ci se tha t r igh t. T he c o u r tf i n d s e v i d e n c e t h a tp e t i t i o n e r k n e w s h e h a dar i g h tt o t e s t i f y. Pe tit ion er e xpr es se d r el uc ta nc e ab out te sti fy ing to he r tr ia l coun se l a nd ne ve r af fi rm at ive ly

r eque ste d th at

she ta ke the stand. I n a dd iti on, pe tit ion er w as pr es en t dur ing co nve rs at ion s ab out w he the r he r husb an d shou ld t es tif

y a nd kne w tha t he w oul d be w ai vin g hi s r igh t a t t ri al

. T he court fu rt her questions the m agistrate j udge’s a pplication of [U nited States v.T eagu e, 953 F.2d 152 5 (11th Cir. 1992)] to require that trial co unse l ex pli ci tly ar

tic ula te to a de fe nda nt tha t he or she ha s ar igh t t o te sti fy a nd tha t the de ci sio n abou t wh ethe r to exe rc ise tha t r igh t be lon gs sol el y to him or he r. Ra the r, the co urt be lie ve tha t t he f oc us s houl d be on w he the r pe tit ion er kne w tha t suc h a ri ght ex ist ed , tha t t he abil ity to ex er ci s e t h a tr i g h tw a s h e r c h o i c e , a n dt h a tp e t i t i o n e r k n o w i n g l y

a nd w ill ing ly w ai ve d that ri ght

. Co nse que ntl y , the c ourt m ust de via te f ro m the m a gi st

r ate j udge’s f

indin gs here because it f

inds th at petitioner failed to show tha t som e ac tio n or ina ct ionby

tr ia l c ouns el de pr ive d he r of “ the ability to choose whether or not to testify in [her] own behalf. ” T eague, 953 F. 2d a t 15 34. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound tha t Fair f ai le d to m ee t t he pe rf

orm an ce pr ong of Stri ck la nd. T he c ourt f

urthe r co nclu de d th at

the m ag istra te j udge ’ s a na ly sis on theWe need not addr ess the issue of c ounsel’s ef fec tiveness if pre

judice is lacking . See 3 Strickland, 4 6 6 U.S . at 697 (“ [A] court ne ed not deter mine whether

counsel’s pe rfor

mance was defic ient befor e examining the pr ejudice suf fer ed by the defe ndant

. . . I f it is easier to dispose of an ineffe ctiveness c laim on the g round of lac k of suffic ient prejudice

. . . t h at course should be followed.” ); Holladay

v. Haley , 209 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000) (“B eca use both pa

rts of the test must be satisfied in order to show a violation of the Six th Amendment, the cour t need not addre ss the perf

ormanc e prong

if the def

enda n t ca n n o t meet the pre judice prong , or vice versa .” (citation omitted).

5 p re ju d i ce p ro n g o f S t ri ck l an d w a s c o r re ct . Ac co rd i n g l y, th e c o u rt d en i ed Fa i r’s

m oti on. Af ter our th orough review of t he record and the parties’ briefs, we find no clear

er ro r in the fi ndi ngs of fa ct , or le ga l er ro r in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a na ly sis , r el at ing to the Strickland prej udice prong. Ac cordingly , F air did not satisfy her burden under 3 Stri ck la nd and the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de nie d he r § 22 55 m oti on. AFFIRMED.