FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 10 49 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 03 -cv -2 00 10 -PAS 1: 96 -cr- 00 07 5- JI C-8 ABEL RIZO, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 15 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: In Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga ll eg o , 24 7 F .3d11 91 (11 Cir . 20 01 ), we affi rm ed thpe ti ti on er Ab el Riz o’s co nv ic ti on s. InJanua ry 20 03 , pet it io ne r m ov edth e d is tri ct co urt p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 to va cat e h is co nv ic ti on s o n t he gro un d tha t h is tri al att orne y

ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l attri al . The co urt re ferr ed th e m ot io n t o am ag is tra te jud ge who is su eda Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on (“ R&R ”) re co m

m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d eny th e m ot io n wi th ou t h ol di ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . The m ag is tra te jud ge m ad e th atreco m m en da ti on aft er co nc lu di ng th atth e rec or d o f th e tr ia l p ro ceed in gs co nc lu si ve ly establ is he d tha t th e m ot io n was witho utm eri t an d t ha t the affi da vi ts pe ti ti on er p ro ffer edinsupp ort of hi s m ot io n c on ta in edno th in g t o warran t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . The d is tri ct co urt o ve rru le d p et it io ne r’s ob jecti on s t o t he R & R an d d en ie d t he m ot io n. Pet it io ne r no w app eal s the rul in g. Th e is su e b efo re u s, wh ic h the di st ric t co urt ce rti fie d i n i ts cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity , is whet he r “ th e d is tri ctco urt err[ ed ] in de nyin g [R iz o’s] cla im th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in te rv ie w or c al l al ib i wi tn es se s wi th ou t h ol di ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng ? ” W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Aro n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 29 1 F .3d70 8, 7 14 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). An ev id en ti ary he ari ng m

us t b e h el d o n am ot io n t o v acat e “ [u ]nle ss th e m ot io n a nd th e fi le s an d re co rd s o f th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sho w th atth e p ris on er i s en ti tl edto 2no rel ie f.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (b ). “ [T]o be en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng , a

[m ov an t] nee d o nl y al le

ge -n otpro ve -rea so nabl y

sp eci fic , no n- co nc lu so ry fact s th at , if tru e, wou lden ti tl e h im to rel ie f. If th e al le ga ti on s ar e n otaffi rm at iv el y co nt rad ic te d b y

th e rec or d a ndth e cl ai m s ar e n otpa te nt ly friv ol ou s, the di st ric t co urt i s re qu ire d t o h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng .” Aro n , 29 1 F .3dat 7 15 n. 6 (em ph as is inori gi na l). “ [C]on te st edfact [u al ] is su es in§ 2 25 5 c as es m us t b e de ci de d o n t he ba si s o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng , no t af fid av it s.” Mon tg ome ryv. Uni te d Sta tes , 46 9 F .2d14 8, 1 50 (5t h C ir. 1 97 2) . 1 To p rev ai l o n acla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, a p ris on er m us t sh ow b ot h t ha t (1 ) hi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedhi s d efen se . Stri cklan d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7, 10 4 S .Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 8 0 L.Ed .2d67 4 (1 98 4) . To es tabl is h d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, th e p ris on er m

us t p ro ve , by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, tha t co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was un reas on ab le . Ch an dl er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 13 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ( en ba nc ). “ [C]om pl ai nt s o f un cal le d wi tn es se s ar e n otfav or ed , be cau se th e p res en ta ti onof t es ti m on ia l ev id en ce i s a m at te r of tri al strat eg y

an d be cau se all eg at io ns of wh ata witne ss wou ldha ve tes ti fie d a re l arg el y In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) ( en banc ), we 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 3sp ecu la ti ve .” Buc kel ew v. Un it ed Stat es , 57 5 F .2d51 5, 5 21 (5th C ir. 1 97 8) . “ The m ere f actth atot he r witne ss es m ig htha ve be enav ai labl e . . . is n ota su ffi ci en t gr ou ndto pro ve in effe ct iv en es s o f co un se l.” W at er s v. Th oma s , 46 F.3d15 06 , 15 14 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (enba nc ). Howev er, wh enco un se l fa il s t o i nv es ti ga te hi s cl ie nt ’s “ on ly . . . po ss ib le de fen se [(tha t d efen da ntwas i n a no th er ci ty whe n t he cri m e was co m

m it te d) ], alt ho ug h re qu es te d t o d o s o b y hi m ; an d fa il s t o s ub po en a witne ss es insupp ort o f th e d efen se , itcanha rd ly be sa idth atth e d efen da nt ” rece iv edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Gomezv. Beto , 46 2 F .2d59 6, 5 97 (5t h Ci r. 19 72 ). To p ro ve pre

jud ic e, th e p ris on er “ m

us t s ho w th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e pr oc eed in g wo ul d h av e b eendi ffer en t.” Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at69 4, 1 04 S.Ct . at 20 68 . A reaso nabl e p ro babi li ty is o ne su ffi ci en t t o und erm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e. Id

. The co urt m

us t co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce b efo re the jud ge orjury in m ak in g t he pre

jud ic e d et erm in at io n. Id. at 6 95 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 69 . A ve rd ic t o r co nc lu si on on ly w eak ly sup po rte d b y th e rec or d i s m or e li ke ly to h av e be enaffe ct edby error s tha n o ne with o ve rwh el m in g re co rdsupp ort. Id. at 6 96 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 69 . Pet it io ne r co nt en ds th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to 4in te rv ie w or c al l al ib i wi tn es se s wh o wo ul d h av e te st ifi edth athe was n otpre se nt

atth e sc en es of t he cri m es ch arg ed , th ereb y affe ct in g t he tri al ’s ou tc om e. Afte r ex am in in g t he affi da vi ts att ach edto pe ti ti on er’s m ot io n a ndth e tr ia l tran sc rip t, we can no t ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the affi da vi ts an d t ran sc rip t, co ns id eredas a who le , con cl us iv el y

est ab li sh th atco un se l’s fa il ur e to pu rs ue th e p ot en ti al ali bi witne ss es di d n otpre

jud ic e p et it io ne r’s de fen se . W e th eref or e v acat e th e d is tri ct co urt’s jud gm en t an d re m an d t he cas e wit h t he in st ru ct io n t ha t the co urt h ol d a n ev id en ti ary he ari ng on pe ti ti on er’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e cl ai m . VACATED andREMANDED, with in st ru ct io ns .

5