NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 11a0102n.06 No. 09-5916 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

CAROL YN B URDETTE, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : SI L ER, MO OR E, a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. S ILER , C i rcuit J udg e. A jury convicted Ca

roly n Bur dette of c onspiracy to murder he r hu sb and Ra ndy . A ft e r t

his c ourt a ff ir me d h e r c on vic tio n a

nd se nte nc e on

dir e c t a pp e a l, B ur de tte filed a pe tition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate he r sentenc e. The district c ourt denied her pe tition and she nowappea ls. For the f ollowing r easons, we AF F IRM

. BACK GR OUND After Bur dette’s husba

nd Randy joined the military , the couple w as st ationed in Texas wher e they beca me ac quainted with Army Serg eant Steve A dams. For some period of time betwee n 1991 and 2000, Adams and Bur dette maintained a romantic re lationship. E v en t u ally , Bur dette soug ht A d a ms ’ s h e lp to k il l h e r h u s b a n d

. A f te r a tt e mp ti n g u n s u c c e s s f u ll y to k il l Ra

n dy , a t B urdette’ s ins ist e nc e , A dams a sk e d M ic ha e l Myott , a fe ll ow ser vi ceman a

nd sn ipe r, to k ill Rand

y . M y ott

re po rt e d th e so lic itatio n to JohnMa ssi e , w ho a rr a ng e d for a se rg e a nt t o c on ta c t and me e t w ith-2-

Ad a ms, po sin g a s a

hitman. Ad a ms’ s e ff

or ts fa ile d be c a

us e , un kn ow n to bo th B ur de tte and Ad a ms, Massie was an underc over A rmy Special Ag ent investig ating the murder plot. Adams was tried a

nd

c o n v i c t e d b y a m i l i t a r y c o u rtf o r h i s r o l e i n t h e c o n s p i r a c y. Bur dette wa s char g ed with conspira cy t o co mmit m urder -for -hire a nd with the use of interstate facilities to commit murder- for- hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. At trial, in addition to A dams’ s te sti mony , th e g ov e rn me nt a lso pr od uc e d a nu mbe r o f l e tte rs se nt b y B ur de tte to A dams. These le tters re flec ted the roma ntic relati o n s h i p b etwee n Bur dette and A dams, and one letter

c on ta ine d a

c od e d r e fe re nc e to B ur de tte ’s pla n t o ki ll her hu sb a nd . A lso a t B ur de tte ’s tr ia l, Jul ie Ne uma n a nd he r hu sb a nd John , a c qu a int a nc e s of the B ur de tte s, te sti fi e d that B ur de tte a dmi tte d to havin g a re la tio ns hi p wi th Ad a ms. B oth a lso te sti fi e d to he a ri ngB ur de tte a nd Ad a ms d isc us s po ssi ble wa

y s to kil l Ra

nd y . F ina lly , M a ssi e te sti fi e d tha t he c on ta c te d B ur de tte , p or tr a y ingthe hit man hired by

Adams to kill Randy . Bur dette and Ma ssie discussed poss ible way s to kill R andy , and Bu rd et t e s u

p p l i edM as s i e w i t h h er

h u s b an d ’s l i k el y

l o ca t i o n an d

t h e v eh i cl e h e w o u l d

b e d ri v i n g. Bur dette testified at trial that her r elationship with Adams was not conse nsual. She claimed that A dams h a d r a

pe d h e r a nd that she wa s the vic tim of Ad a ms’ s del us ion a l obse ssi on . Burd e tte denied e ver know ing that Adams had attempted to have Randy killed. Burde tte was c onvicted on both counts and the district cour t sentence d her to 151 months’ imprisonment. On direc t appea l, we aff irmed B urdette’ s conviction and sente nce. Un ite d S tat es v . B ur

de tte , 86 F. App’x 121 (6th Ci r. 2004). B u r d e tt e th e n f

il e d th is mo ti o n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U

. S. C. § 2 2 5 5 to v a c a te h e r s e n te n c e. She

argue d th a t sh e wa s d e nie d th e e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l a t tr ia l be c a

us e he r c ouns e l f

a ile d to obtain cer tain impeachme nt evidence for use ag ai n s t Adams. I n support, Bur dette submitted the-3-

testimony of Dr. Joan S ch l ei cher at Adams’s military

sentenc ing he aring . Dr. Schleic her, a psy cholog ist, concluded that Adams suffere d from a “ schizoid personality disorder” and that he possessed “deep, delusional beliefs about his role in the wor ld.” As a r esult, Dr. Schleiche r found that A dams w a s una

ble to p ro pe rl y

“ we ig h w hat[] [wa s] ha pp e nin g in hi s r e la tio ns hip wi th [Burdette], or what[ ] [ was] not happening .” Adams fa ntasized himself to be Bur dette’s r escue r. Dr. Schleicher

conclude d, howeve r, t h at Adams wa s able to distinguish rig ht from wrongand did not

su ff e r f ro m ha llu c inatio ns . By the time of B urdette’ s trial, Adams had a lrea dy been se ntence d for his role in the

c on sp ir a c y , a

nd Dr . Sch le ic he r’ s tes tim on y wo uld have be e n av a ila ble fo r B ur de tte ’s us e . D e sp ite his close contac t with Adams’s mili tary counsel, B urdette’ s trial counsel fa iled to obtain Dr. Schleicher ’s testimony . Bur dette’s tria l coun s el co u l d n o t expl ain why he fa iled to do so, but conclude d that the testimony would have been helpful, both to impea ch Adams and to support the de fe ns e ’s the or

y that B ur de tte wa s th e vic timof vio le nt t re a tme nt by Ad a ms. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld that the fa ilure by

Bur dette’s c ounsel to o b tain this im peac hment evidenc e constituted def icient perf or ma n c e b u t th a t th e e r

r o r d id n o t p r e

ju d ic e B u r d e tt e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt denied Bur dette’s § 2255 motion. DI SCU SSIO N We revie w a dist rict cour

t’s denial of a

§ 2255 motion de novo , but reviewthe district court’s finding s of fa ct for c lear

err or. Benitez v. U

nited States , 521 F.3d 625, 630 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Bur dette ar g ues that t he fa ilure by her tria l counsel to obtain Dr. Schleic her’ s testimony

cre ated suff

icient prejudice such that, with the i nclusion of t his testimony , the out come of her tria l would have been differe nt. Whether a defe ndant i s deprive d of the e ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel-4-

is determined unde r the two-pr ong ed Strickland test. “F irst, the defe ndant must show that counsel’s perf ormanc e wa s d ef

icient. . . . Second, the de fenda nt must show that the deficient pe rfor mance prejudice d the def

ense.” Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Be cause the district court found de ficient pe rfor mance , but not prejudi ce , we a ddress only the sec ond prong of the Strickland

i n qu i r y. To de mon str a te pr e

jud ic e , “ [t]he de fe nd a nt m us t sh ow that th e re is a

re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, but for counsel’s unprofe ssional err ors, t he result of the proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent.” Id. at 694. A “r easona

ble proba bility ” is a proba

bility “suff icient to under m i n e confidence in the outcome.” Id. Bur dette ar g ues t h at , with Dr. Schleiche r’s testimony , a re asonable jury could have discou n t ed Adams’s testimony as delusional—supporting her de fense that Adams ra ped her —or conclude d that she and Adams shared a consensua l aff air but that Adams erroneously believed that Bur dette aske d him to kil l Randy

. T h e am o u n t and substance of other e vidence admitted at Bur dette’s tria l, however , in addition to Dr. S chleiche r’s testimony , preve nts us from rea ching any conclusion o t h er t han that this impeachme nt evidence would not have a ltered the outcome of B ur de tte ’s tr ia l. Dr. Schleicher ’s testimony would not ha ve altere d the trial’s outcome beca use it would not

nece ssarily

have disc redited A dams’s testimony . As the district court observe d, Dr. Schleic her’ s testimony was a double-e dg ed sword. D r. Schleiche r conc luded that Adams did not suffe r fr om hallucinations and she considere d him to be “a truthful, honest g uy .” Whil e Adams may have be en de lus ion a l, D r. Sc hle ic he r t e sti fi e d th a t it wa s Bu rd

e tte who manipulated a

n unstable Adams. The oth e r e vid e nc e a t tria l fur

the r bol ste re d Ada

ms’ s tes tim on y . Th e le tte rs se nt b y B ur de tte to A dams-5-

evidenc ed that a r omantic re lationship ex isted b et we en the two. Burde tte conclude d near ly ever y letter with the wor ds “love a nd miss y ou” or “ love alwa y s.” I n ad d i t i on to Adams, two other wi tne sse s at tr ia l te sti fi e d that B ur de tte he rs e lf a dmi tte d to the e xiste nc e of a c on se ns ua l, r oma

nti c relationship wit h Adams. Fur thermore , the ample amount of ot her e vidence admitted at trial over whelming ly

proved Bur dette’s guilt, Dr. Schleicher ’s testimony notwithstanding. J ulie and J ohn Neuman both testified that they witnessed Adams and Bur dette discuss var i o u s wa y s of killing Randy . Bur dette’s other letters also sug g ested her desire to ha ve Randy killed. Burde tte beg g ed Adams to “please he lp me,” and stated that she would be thankful “whe n this [was] AL L OVER.” Finally , Bur dette wa s rec orded discussing the killing of he r husband with a pr esumed hitman

. Bu rd ette sug g ested to Massie that deer hunting se ason would beg in soon. Massie and B urdette discussed the number of hunting

acc idents that occur

red e ach y ear , and B urdette pr ovided M assie with the s pecif ic l ocation whe re he r h u s b an d wo u l d b e h u n t i n g. There was ample evidenc e to prove that Bur dette part i ci p at ed in a conspira cy to have he r husband killed. Dr. Schleic her’ s testimony fails to raise a reasonable probability that, with it, any juror could have possessed a reasona ble doubt respe cting Bur dette’s guilt. As a result, Bur dette does not show the prejudice require d to de monstrate that she was deprive d of the ef fec tive assistance of

c ouns e l. AF F IR M ED

.