FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 35 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 07 -cv -0 28 26 -ODE, 1: 03 -cr- 00 49 3- ODE-AJB- 24 RAMON ALVAREZ-SANCHEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
vers us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ram on Alv arez -San ch ez (“ San ch ez”) , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec tse nt en ce, fi le d u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 . For t he reas on s s ta te d b el ow, we af firm . I. InJan uary

20 05 , pu rs ua ntto a pl ea ag reem en t, Sanc he z p le ad edgu il ty to
co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te il le ga l dru gs (Co un t 1 ) an d po ss es si ng a fi rearm

in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e (Co un t 2 3) . The di st ric t co urt s en te nc edSan ch ez t o 3 27 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt1, t o b e fo ll owe d b y

a m an da to ry , con se cu ti ve term of 5 y ears onCo un t 2 3, re su lt in g i n a to ta l s en te nc e o f 38 7 m on th s. Am on g t he cla im s fi le d i n h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n, San ch ez al le ge d t ha t h is tri al co un se l, Pa tri ckDeeri ng , ren de redin effe ct iv e
as si st an ce b y

fai li ng to in fo rm

hi m th atth e g ov ern m en t h adoff ereda m or e fav or ab le pl ea ag reem en t tha n the on e h e ev en tu al ly sig ne d. To supp ort h is cla im , San ch ez p ro du ceda le tt er fro m th e g ov ern m en t t o Dee rin g, d at edNov em be r 23 , 20 04 , off eri ng a pl ea d eal , pu rs ua ntto whi ch San ch ez wo ul d p le adgu il ty onl y to Co un t 1 of t he in di ctm en t, the reb y av oi di ng th e co ns ecu ti ve fiv e-year sen te nc e o n th e fi rearm

ch arg e. The di stric t co urt d en ie d S an ch ez’s § 22 55 m ot io n. Onap pe al , we vac at ed th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t an d re m an de d fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er Deer in g h adco m m un ic at edth e Nov em

be r 20 04 pl ea o fferto San ch ez an d whe th er Sa nc he z wou ldhave acce pt edth atoff er. Alva re

z- Sa nc he z v. Un it ed
2St at es , 35 0 F ed . App ’x 42 1, 4 25 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e st at edth atDeeri ng ’s fai lu re

to co m m un ic at e th e o fferwou ldco ns ti tu te de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce u nd er Stri ckl an d v. W as hi ng to n , an d, i f San ch ez wo ul d h av e acc ep te d t he off er, h e wou ldsat is fy 1 Stri ckl an d ’s pre

jud ic e p ro ng . Id

. At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , San ch ez, wh o was rep res en te d b y a ne w cou ns el , cal le d Dee rin g a s a wi tn es s. Deer in g t es ti fie d t ha t, s om et im e in Octo be r 20 04 , he
m etwith t he Ass is ta ntU.S. Atto rn ey (“ AUSA”) t o d is cu ss San ch ez’s ca se , andth e AUSA verba ll y

ga ve Deeri ng a pr el im in ary pl ea o ffer , pro m is in g t o s en d Dee rin g a le tt er ab ou t the off

er. Bef or e rec ei vi ng an yth in g i n wri ti ng , Deeri ng vi si te d San ch ez an d t al ke d t o h im ab ou t t he off

er. Whe n, o n No ve m

be r 23 , 20 04 , Deeri ng fin al ly recei ve d t he let te r co nc ern in g t he pl ea o ffer , he f orward editto San ch ez. Afte rward s, Dee rin g t al ke d t o S an ch ez i n d et ai l ab ou t the go ve rn m en t’s l et te r an d th e acc om

pa nyin g p ro po se d p le a ag reem en t. Deer in g s ta te d tha t t he go ve rn m en t’s le tt er an d t he pro po se d p le a ag reem en t re fle ct edth e sa m e p le a o fferth atDeeri ng ha d i ni ti al ly dis cu ss edwith t he AUSA. He exp la in edth atSan ch ez re fu se d t o
acce ptth e p le a o fferfortwo m ai n re as on s. Fi rs t, Sa nc he z wan te d a n a ss ur an ce

Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.C t. 2052, 80 L .Ed.2d 674 (1984). In 1 Strickland, the Supreme Court he ld that a def endant se ekingto overturn a conviction base d on ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel at trial must establish two elements: first, the de fenda nt must show that counsel’ s perf

ormanc e wa s deficie nt, and sec ond, he must show that the def icient perf ormanc e pre

judiced him. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. 3fro m

th e g ov ern m en t tha t s ev eral of h is fam il y m em be rs wou ldno t b e p ro se cu te d,
an d t he go ve rn m en t wo ul d n otpro vi de su ch anass ur an ce. Sec on d, Sa nc he z fel t th atth e p ro po se d p le a ag reem en t wo ul d re su ltin anov erl y lo ng pri so n s en te nc e
un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Deeri ng ad di ti on al ly test ifi edth at , du rin g the rel ev an t t im es , he v is it ed San ch ez atth e fed eral pe ni te nt ia ry in Atl an ta . As pa rt o f th e v is it at io n p ro cedur es , Deeri ng ha d t o s en d afax to th e p ris on reque st in g t he vi si t an d, upo n a rri va l, h ad to si gn a lo g s he et . At th is po in t i n t he he ari ng , Deeri ng was s ho wn s ev eral let te rs th athe ha d fa xe d t o t he pri so n, ex pr es si ng hi s i nt en t t o v is itSan ch ez o n Dec em be r 9t h a nd16 th of 2 00 4. Deer in g s ta te d t ha t h e v is it edSan ch ez p erh ap s 2 0 t im es whi le rep res en ti ng hi m , bu t co ul d n otreca ll an y sp eci fic vi si ts , in cl ud in g t he vi si ts
on Decem

be r 9t h a nd16 th . Whe n c on fro nt edwith t he vi si to r lo g s he et s fr om th e Atl an tape ni te nt ia ry , whi ch di d n otli stDeeri ng ’s nam e o n Dec em be r 9th o r 16 th , Deeri ng ass ert edth at , reg ard le ss of wh atth e lo g s he et s co nt ai ne d, h e d idvi si t San ch ez i n Dec em

be r. Afte r Deeri ng tes ti fie d, Sa nc he z h im se lf t oo k t he st an d. He ac kn owl ed ge d th atDeeri ng vi si te d h im

in Octo be r an d e arl y

Nov em be r to di sc us s a p os si bl e p le a to Co un t 1 of t he in di ct m en t. He m ai nt ai ne d, h owe ve r, th athe ha d n ev er re cei ve d th e g ov ern m en t’s No ve m be r 20 04 let te r co nc ern in g the pro po se d p le a ag reem en t.

4The fir stti m e th athe saw the do cu m en t was in 20 06 , when he rece iv edhi s fi le

fro m hi s ap pe ll at e la wy er. San ch ez t es ti fie d t ha t, i f he ha d s een th e Nov em be r 20 04 pro po se d p le a ag reem en t, h e wou ldha ve acce pt editbe cau se th atag reem en t di d n otin cl ud e th e weap on s ch arg e an d b ecau se he want edto pl eadgu il ty andha d al way s ac cep te d re sp on si bi li ty. San ch ez d idno t re cal l Dee rin g v is it in g h im in Decem be r 20 04 , bu t d idreca ll th atDeeri ng saw h im in Jan ua ry

20 05 , a few d ay s be fo re h e actua ll y

pl ead edgu il ty. Afte r a co nt inua nc e, San ch ez ca ll edto th e st an d R al ph Hod ge , an o ffi ci al fro m th e Atl an tape ni te nt ia ry . Hod ge tes ti fie d, i n re le vantpa rt, t ha t i f anatt orne y fax edhi m

a le tt er re qu es ti ng a vi si t b utth e at to rn ey ’s nam e d idno t ap pe ar i n t he lo gb oo k, i t was “ m or e li ke ly” th atth e at to rn ey di d n otco m e. Hod ge als o t es ti fie d th atif s om eo ne do es no t s ig n the lo gb oo k, the y wou ldno t g etin to th e pe ni te nt ia ry . Dur in g t he he ari ng , th e g ov ern m en t i ntro du cedsev eral ex hi bi ts , in cl ud in g Deeri ng ’s no te s fr om

hi s m eet in gs with S an ch ez o n Oct ob er 8 th , Nov em be r 3r d,
an d No ve m

be r 16 th of 2 00 4. Acco rd in g t o Dee rin g’s n ot es fro m Octo be r 8t h, San ch ez wan te d t o p le adgu il ty to Co un t 1 , bu t h e wou ldno t co op erat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t, an d h e wan te d ade al forhi s fa m il y . Not es fro m th e o th er two
m eet in gs als o m en ti on eda po ss ib le pl ea ag reem en t.
5San ch ez’s ex hi bi ts in cl ud eda le tt er tha t h e h adwrit te n t o t he di stric t co urt,

da te d No ve m

be r 16 , 20 04 . In the let te r, San ch ez s ta te d t ha t h e in te nd s t o p le ad gu il ty andto acce pt“ fu ll res po ns ib il it y forth e m on ey

fou ndin m

y ho m e, an d a ls o
ex cl us iv el y

forth e acc us at io n o f m

y so le cri m e.” He al so ask edth e co urt n otto al lo w th e g ov ern m en t t o c on vi cthi m of c rimes th athe ha d n ev er co m m it te d, an d he be gg edth e co urt fo r th e rel eas e o f hi s wi fe, wh o, h e em ph as iz ed , was i nn oc en t of an y wron gd oi ng . In ad di ti on to th e le tt er, San ch ez s ub m it te d the writ te n p le a of fer t ha t the go ve rn m en t s en t t o Dee rin g o n No ve m be r 23 , 20 04 , alo ng with a pr op os edpl ea ag reem en t. Purs ua ntto th e ag reem en t, Sa nc he z wou ldpl eadgu il ty to Co un t 1 of t he in di ct m en t, b utth ere was no li m iton th e am ou ntof d ru gs at tri bu tabl e to hi m

or t he len gt h o f hi s p ot en ti al sen te nc e. San ch ez fu rth er pr oduc eda co ve r le tt er ad dr es se d t o h im fro m Deeri ng ’s off

ic e, da te d No ve m

be r 24 , 20 04 , whi ch st at ed : “ Enc lo se d a re d oc um en ts fro m th e Ass is ta ntU.S. Att orne y , reg ard in g adra ft p le a ag reem en t.” Fi na ll y , San ch ez i nc lu de d a m on g h is
ex hi bi ts th e afo rem en ti on edvi si t n ot ifi cat io ns th atDeeri ng ha d fa xe d t o t he Atl an tape ni te nt ia ry

in Decem

be r 20 04 , as wel l as th e lo g s he et s fr om th e pe ni te nt ia ry . Afte r th e h eari ng co nc lu de d, t he di stric t co urt i ss ue d a n o rd er d en y in g San ch ez’s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d, am on g o th er 6th in gs , th atDeeri ng ha d s en t the Nov em be r 20 04 writ te n p le a o fferto San ch ez, th atSan ch ez h adrece iv edit , andth atth e wri tt enoff er was th e sa m e as th atwhi ch Deeri ng ha d p rev io us ly dis cu ss edwith h im . The d is tri ctco urt ex pr es sl y cred it ed Deeri ng ’s tes ti m on y

th athe ha d v is it edSan ch ez i n Dec em be r 20 04 an d h ad di sc us se d t he pl ea o ffer , bu t the co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t i t was no t cl ear wh y Deeri ng ’s si gn atur e d idno t ap pe ar o n t he pri so n l og sh eet s. Th e co urt fo un d t ha t,
ev enif Dee rin g d idno t v is itSan ch ez i n Dec em be r, Deeri ng ha d d is cu ss edth e p le a of fer wi th San ch ez o n p rio r oc cas io ns an d kne w whatSan ch ez wan te d fr om a pl ea ag reem en t. The d is tri ctco urt al so cred it edDeeri ng ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g San ch ez’s rea so ns forreject in g t he fir stpl ea o ffer . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t San ch ez h adfai le d t o e st ab li sh bo th th e d efi ci en cy an d p reju di ce p ro ng s o f Stri ckl an d
. The di stric t co urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) o n t he is su e of whet he r Deeri ng “pr ov id edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l wi th res pe ctto th e Nov em be r 20 04 pl ea o ffer .” II. On ap pe al , San ch ez ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y fai le d t o wei gh

7hi s t es ti m on y an d t o m ak e p ro pe r cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns . He als o c on te nd s 2 th at , inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the he ari ng , he h as est ab li sh edth athi s
co un se l p erfo rm edde fic ie nt ly andth athe su ffer edpre jud ic e as a res ul t. Inanap pe al ch al le ng in g a§ 2 25 5 ru li ng , we rev ie w leg al is su es de no vo
an d fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Mur ph y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 63 4 F .3d13 03 , 13 06 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . Und er the cle ar erro r st an da rd , we m us t af firm a di st ric t co urt’s fin di ng s o f fac t u nl es s t he reco rdlac ks subs tant ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he m . Sa n Mar ti n v . McNei l , 63 3 F .3d12 57 , 12 65 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d (U.S. Oct. 3 , 20 11 ) (No . 10 -1 06 78 ). W e wil l g iv e ev engre at er d efer en ce t o fa ctfin di ng s o f th e di st ric t co urt tha t ar e b as edon de te rm in at io ns of wi tn es s cr ed ib il it y . St an o v . But te rw or th , 51 F.3d94 2, 9 44 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). A. To s up po rt h is arg um en t re ga rd in g c red ib il it y , San ch ez re li es on ou r de ci si on in Gal le

go v. Uni te d Sta tes , 17 4 F .3d11 96 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In t ha t ca se ,
In his brief, Sanc hez reque sts a COA on the cr edibility issue. Howeve r, the district 2 court a lrea dy

issued a broa d COA, allowingSanchez to appea l the denial of his inef fec tiveassistance claim. While the COA does not specific ally mention the court’s c redibility finding s, those finding s form an ine x tricable proce dural pa rt of the que stion on appeal, a nd, there fore , we do not need to grant a

n additional COA. See M urray v. United States , 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 ( 11th Cir.1998) (“A lthough we will not decide any issue not specified in the COA , we will construe the issue specific ation in light of the ple ading s and other pa rts of the re cord.” ); see also Mc Coy v. United States , 266 F.3d 1245, 1248 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (re adinga COA to enc ompass those “proc edura l issues which must be resolved be fore this Court can rea ch the merits” of the underlying c laim). 8a m ag is tra te jud ge ha d d en ie d apri so ne r’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m on th e gr ou ndth at , du rin g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e p ris on er fa il edto pre se ntev id en ce
supp orti ng hi s t es ti m on y . Gal le go , 17 4 F .3dat 1 19 7- 98 . On ap pe al , we rev ers ed th e m ag is tra te ’s dec is io n a ndhe ldth atth e “ factth atde fen da nt ’s tes ti m on y is
un co rro bo rat edis no t en ou gh st an di ng alo ne to supp ort a c red ib il it y fin di ng .” Id

. at11 98 . W e o bs erv edth ata di st ric t co urt m ay well fin d ade fen da ntto be no t cred ib le , bu t h ere the m ag is tra te fai le d t o m ak e an y cred ib il it y

fin di ng s o r to
ex pl ai n wh y

co un se l was th e m or e cre di bl e wit ne ss , andno th in g i n t he
m ag is tra te ’s rep ort i nd ic at edth atth e m ag is tra te weig he d t he de fen da nt ’s cred ib il it y . Id

. San ch ez’s rel ia nc e o n Gal le go is mis pl aced . Unl ik e in Gal le go , th e d is tri ct
co urt i n thi s ca se di d n otde ny Sanc he z’s cl ai m on th e g ro un d t ha t h e fai le d t o pr es en t ev id en ce co rro bo rat in g h is tes ti m on y . As de sc rib edab ov e, bo th pa rti es pr es en te d e xh ib it s t o s up po rt t he ir r es pe ct iv e te st im on ie s, an d the di st ric t co urt
co ns id eredth is ev id en ce. Mo reo ve r, whi le th e co urt d idno t s pe ci fic al ly addres s San ch ez’s cre di bi li ty, th e co urt ex pr es sl y fou ndDeeri ng to be cred ib le , andit s factua l fi nd in gs were co ns is te ntwith Dee rin g’s t es ti m on y , whi ch di rect ly im pl ie s th atSan ch ez’s co ntrary tes ti m on y was n otcred ib le . Thu s, the co urt p ro pe rly weig he d S an ch ez’s t es ti m on y , andth ere i s n o c au se for a rem an d. Se e Uni te d
9St at es v. $2 42 ,48 4.0 0 , 38 9 F .3d11 49 , 11 54 -5 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ( en ba nc ) (s ta ti ng

th at , if a d is tri ctco urt fa il s t o e xp res sl y de ci de a factua l i ss ue th atm at te rs to th e jud gm en t, thi s C ou rt m ay in fer t ha t t he di st ric t co urt “ im pl ic it ly reso lv edth at factua l i ss ue in a way

co ns is te ntwith t he jud gm en t” ); se e a ls o T ej ad a v . Dug ge r , 94 1 F .2d15 51 , 15 63 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (“ Whe n i t ap pe ars th ata tr ia l co urt wo ul d ha ve grant edth e rel ie f so ug htif i t h adbe li ev edth e d efen da nt ’s tes ti m on y , th enit s fai lu re t o g ran t re li ef was tan ta m ou ntto anex pr es s fi nd in g a ga in stth e cre di bi li ty of th e d efen da nt .” (quo ta ti on om it te d) ). B. W it h re ga rdto th e d efi ci en cy pro ng of Stri ckl an d , evi de nc e supp orts th e di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Dee rin g h adco nv ey edto San ch ez the go ve rn m en t’s fir stpl ea o ffer . Deeri ng tes ti fie d t ha t h e h addi sc us se d wi th San ch ez the ess en ti al te rm s o f th e g ov ern m en t’s o fferbe fo re rec ei vi ng th e wri tt enoff er i n No ve m

be r 20 04 ; t ha t h e h adsen t the writ te n o fferto San ch ez an d re vi eweditwith h im ; an d th atSan ch ez re fu se d t o a ccep t the pl ea o fferbe cau se itwou ldha ve pro vi de d n o pr ot ect io n fo r hi s fa m il y

an d wo ul d h av e res ul te d i n a n e xc es si ve sen te nc e. As st at edab ov e, th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d, an d d id , fin d Dee rin g t o b e cre di bl e. Se e St an o , 51 F.3dat 9 44 . Sev eral ex hi bi ts supp orte d Dee rin g’s t es ti m on y . His n ot es in di cat edth athe m etwith S an ch ez thr ee t im es in Octo be r an d No ve m be r to
10di sc us s a p os si bl e p le a d eal an d tha t Sa nc he z, whi le de si rin g t o p le adgu il ty to

Co un t 1 , als o wan te d ade al forhi s fa m il y . Mor eo ve r, th e co ve r le tt er fro m Deeri ng ’s off

ic e, da te d No ve m

be r 24 , 20 04 , in di cat edth atDeeri ng ha d s en t t o San ch ez the go ve rn m en t’s fi rs t wri tt enpl ea o fferan d t he acco m panyin g p ro po se d pl ea ag reem en t. The let te r th atSan ch ez s en t t o t he co urt o n No ve m be r 16 , 20 04 , andth e pr is on lo g s he et s, co up le d wi th Hod ge ’s tes ti m on y , do no t u nd erm in e th e d is tri ct
co urt’s fi nd in gs . The No ve m be r 16 th let te r sh ows th atSan ch ez wan te d t o p le ad gu il ty, bu t i t al so in di cat es th athe want edto li m itth e ex te ntof h is cu lp ab il it y an d
so ug htth e rel eas e o f hi s wi fe. Bec au se th e g ov ern m en t’s fi rs t p le a o ffer pl acedno li m it s o n S an ch ez’s p ot en ti al sen te nc e an d p ro vi de d n o p ro te ct io n t o h is fam il y
m em be rs , San ch ez’s l et te r is co ns is te ntwith Dee rin g’s ex pl an at io n a s t o wh y San ch ez re fu se d t o a ccep t the off er. As t o t he pri so n l og sh eet s an d t he acco m pa nyin g t es ti m on y

of Ho dg e, th is
ev id en ce i s n oten ti rel y

co nc lu si ve as t o wh ethe r Deeri ng ha d a ctua ll y vi si te d San ch ez i n Dec em

be r 20 04 . Am on g t he ex hi bi ts were s ev eral no ti fic at io ns th at Deeri ng ha d fa xe d t o t he Atl an tape ni te nt ia ry , exp res si ng hi s i nt en t t o v is it San ch ez o n Dec em

be r 9t h a nd16 th , andon e co ul d re as on ab ly con cl ud e th at Deeri ng ha d n ottwi ce n ot ifi edth e p ris on of h is vi si t b utfai le d t o app ear b ot h
11ti m es . Mor eo ve r, whi le Hod ge tes ti fie d t ha t a p ers on wou ldno t b e ab le to vi si t t he

pe ni te nt ia ry

witho utsi gn in g t he lo g s he et , he a ls o t es ti fie d t ha t, i f so m eo ne sen t a fax no ti fic at io n b uthi s n am e d idno t ap pe ar i n t he lo g s he et , “ m or e li ke ly” th at pe rs on di d n otco m e. Thi s s ti ll lea ve s o pe n apo ss ib il it y th atDeeri ng vi si te d San ch ez i n Dec em

be r wit ho utsi gn in g t he lo g s he et . Fin al ly, as th e d is tri ctco urt
no te d, ev enif Dee rin g h adno t v is it edSan ch ez i n Dec em be r, th is do es no t pr ecl ud e th e p os si bi li ty tha t Dee rin g d is cu ss edwith S an ch ez the ess en ti al term s o f th e g ov ern m en t’s fi rs t p le a o fferin Octo be r an d No ve m be r. Insu m , whi le th e rec or d c on ta in s s om e ev id en ce t o s up po rt S an ch ez’s po si ti on , stro ng er ev id en ce s ug ge st s tha t Dee rin g h ad , infact , con ve y edth e go ve rn m en t’s fi rs t p le a o fferto San ch ez an d t ho ro ug hl y di sc us se d i t wi th hi m . Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t he lat te r sc en ari o t o b e tru e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho ll ow ay , 74 F.3d24 9, 2 52 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (“ If the di st ric t co urt’s ac co un t o f th e ev id en ce i s p laus ib le inli gh t o f th e rec or d v ie wedin it s en ti rety , th e co urt o f ap pe al s m ay no t re ve rs e itev enth ou gh co nv in cedth atha d itbe ensi tt in g a s t rie r of

fact , itwou ldha ve weig he d the ev id en ce d iff eren tl y .” (quo ta ti onom it te d) ). Bec au se San ch ez h as fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athi s t ria l co un se l p erfo rm ed de fic ie nt ly, we affi rm

th e d en ia l o f hi s § 22 55 m ot io n wi th ou t ad dr es si ng

12pr ejud ic e. Se e Str ic klan d , 46 6 U.S. at69 7, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 9 (s ta ti ng th ata co urt

ne edno t ad dr es s b ot h c om po ne nt s o f th e in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce i nqui ry “ if t he de fen da ntm ak es anin su ffi ci en t s ho win g o n o ne .”). AFFIRMED.

13