# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 14 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dus ti n L. Worth ey

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 2 1, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Marc h 2 2, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Fed eral in m at e Dus ti n L. Wo r th ey ap pe al s aft er th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s 1
28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n fo ll owi ng a he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on W or th ey ’s cl ai m s th at tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , J r

. , U n i te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.r e qu es t a co nt in ua nc e aft er th e di sc lo su re of ne w ev id en ce, an d fo r fai li ng to ca l l

W or th ey to te st ify at tri al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 9 1 , t h i s co ur t affi rm s.

Thi s co ur t ag re es tha

t W or th ey ’s co un se l di d no t pr ov id e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce. Se e St ri ckl an d v. W

as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7- 88 (1 98 4) (in effe ct iv e- a ss is ta nc e cl ai m req ui res sh owi ng of bo th de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce an d res ul ti ng pr ejud ic e); Dav is

v. Uni te d St at es , 67 3 F.3 d 84 9, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W or th ey di d

no t sh ow th at co un se l pe rfo rm ed de fic i e n t l y i n f ai li ng to req ue st a co nt in ua nc e, as

co un se l tri ed to ha ve th e ne w ev id en ce ex cl ud ed , di d no t co m m it an erro r th at le d to th e ne ed fo r a co nt in ua nc e, an d at te m pt ed to di sc red it th e ev id en ce an d it s ad m is si on at tri al ; an d th e co ur t cred it ed co un se l’s he ari ng te st im on y th at W or th ey di d no t wan t

a co nt in ua nc e. S ee W

il li ams v. Uni te d St at es , 4 52 F.3 d 10 09 , 1 01 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rev ie w o f co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce is “ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l” ); Uni te d St at es v. Her na nd ez , 28 1 F.3 d 74 6, 74 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (wit ne ss cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are

“ vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le ” on ap pe al ). W or th ey al so di d no t sh ow ho w a co nt in ua nc e

wou ld ha ve ch an ge d t he tri al ou tc om e.

W or th ey di d no t es ta bl is h de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce in co un se l’s fai lu re to cal l hi m to te st ify at tri al , as co un se l be li ev ed W or th ey sh ou ld no t te s t i f y , an d th e co ur t

c r e d i te d co un se l’s he ari ng te st im on y th at W or th ey di d no t wan t to te st ify. S e e Buc kl ew v. Lu eb be rs , 43 6 F.3 d 10 10 , 10 17 -2 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (co un se l no t in effe ct iv e fo r no t cal li ng wit ne ss who wou ld da m ag e th e cas e or who se te st im on y wo ul d be

cu m ula ti ve ); Her na nd ez , 28 1 F.3 d at 74 8 (wit ne ss cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns virtu al ly

un rev ie wab le ); Bow man v. Gammo n , 85 F.3 d 13 39 , 13 45 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (co un se l’s
st rat eg ic de ci si on s are vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le ); Uni te d St at es v. Bern lo eh r , 83 3 F.2 d 74 9, 75 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (wh ere at to rn ey res te d wit ho ut cal li ng de fen da nt to te st ify,

“ th e accu se d m

us t act affi rm at iv el y ” if he wis he s to te st ify). W or th ey fai le d to sh ow ho w hi s t es ti m on y

wou ld ha ve ch an ge d t he tri al ou tc om e.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -2

-