FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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 0- 12 62 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 08 -cv -0 14 97 -ODE, 1: 03 -cr- 00 49 3- ODE-AJB- 26 LUIS EDUARDO PEREZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 ur t forth e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Lui s Pe rez, a f

ed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e se nt en ce. We gran te d acert ifi cat eof

ap pe al ab il it y

onon e is su e: “ Whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t erredinfin di ng th at
co un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve for fai li ng to cal l wei gh st at io n o ffi ci al s t o t es ti fy in Pere z’s de fen se ? ” Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. Pere z, a fed eral pri so ne r se rv in g a13 5- m on th sen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m ari

juan a, fi le d a pr o s e § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e. Inhi s
m ot io n, Pe rez a ss ert edth athe ha d re cei ve d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e fro m hi s d efen se
co un se l. Am on g o th er t hi ng s, h e arg ue d t ha t h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in te rv ie w andsubp oe naoff ic ia ls fro m

two weig h s ta ti on s wh o h ad
se arch edhi s t ru ckwit h d ru g- sn iff in g d og s an d h adno t fo un d a ny m ari juan a in si de
. At Pe rez’s t ria l, the go ve rn m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th athe ha d tran sp orte d
m ari juan a fo r a dru g t raff

ic ki ng org an iz at io n h ead edby Ram on Alv arez -San ch ez (“ Ram on ”). A co -co ns pi rat or , Nich ol as Garci a, te st ifi edth atPere z worke d a s a tru ckdri ve r fo r Ram on . On o ne oc cas io n, Ra m on in st ru ct edGarci a to pi ckup Pere z atanair

po rt i n Tex as so th atPere z co ul d d riv e a l oa d o f m ari juan a fro m Tex as to Atl an ta . Accor di ng to Garci a, Ram on ne ve r fl ew in tru ckdri ve rs for le gi ti m at e lo ad s. Aft er Pe rez l eftin th e truc k, Ra m on cal le d Gar ci a an d i nf orm ed hi m th atPere z h adbe enst op pe d b y th e Dep artm en t o f Tran sp orta ti on du e to a
2pr ob le m

wit h t he tru ck ’s pap erwo rk . Later, Pe rez c al le d Gar ci a an d e xp la in edth at th e p ro bl em

ha d b een cle aredup an d t ha t h e was jus t g oi ng to ha ve to pa y a fi ne . The lo adof m ari

juan a was de li ve redto Ram on in Atl an ta . Sp eci al Agen t Ro be rt M ur ph y of t he Drug Enfo rcem en t Ad m in is tra ti on te st ifi edth atlaw en fo rcem en t i nt erce pt eda se rie s o f te le ph on e cal ls be twee n Ram on an d P erez . On Ju ne 17 , 20 03 , Perez cal le d R am on an d s ta te d tha t h e h ad be en st op pe d a t a wei gh st at io n b ecau se of adi sc rep an cy in hi s p ap erwo rk . Perez
ex cl ai m ed , “ th es e p eo pl e h ere a t t he sca le cau gh t m e . . . .” T wen ty min ut es lat er, Pere z to ldRam on th athe wou ldjus t h av e to pa y a $5 00 fin e. Ram on em

ph as iz ed th atth e im

po rta ntth in g was forPere z to ge t o utof t he re. Sp eci al Agen t M ur

ph y ex pl ai ne d t ha t an in di vi du al kn ownas “ Pri m o- 2”
was fol lo win g P erez ’s tru ckin a tr ai l ca r. On the ev en in g o f Ju ne 17 , 20 03 , law
en fo rcem en t i nt erce pt eda te le ph on e cal l b et ween Pri m o- 2 a ndRam on . Duri ng th atcal l, Pri m o- 2 i nf

orm edRam on th atPere z’s truc k h adbe en st op pe d a t a s eco nd weig h s ta ti on . Prim o- 2 e xp la in edth atth e fi rs t wei gh st at io n h adfax ed in fo rm at io n abo utPere z’s truc k t o t he ne xtst at io n. When Pere z arr iv edat t he
se co ndweig h s ta ti on , th ere wer e o ffi cers wit h d og s s ta nd in g b y . The o ffi cers
se arch edPere z’s truc k, b utth ey di d n otfin d a nyth in g a ndPere z was all owe d t o le av e. Sp eci al Agen t M ur ph y in te rp ret edPri m o- 2’s s ta te m en ts ab ou t t he do gs to

3m ean th atth ere wer e dru g- sn iff in g d og s atth e wei gh st at io n b utth atth ey ha d n ot be en us edin th e se arch of P erez ’s tru ck . He ackno wled ge d, h owe ve r, th atth is was jus t h is own in te rp ret at io n o f th e cal l. Law en fo rcem en t n ev er s ei zedth e Ju ne 17 lo adof m ari

juan a. Pere z te st ifi edinhi s o wn d efen se . He ass ert edth athe was aleg it im at e tru ckdri ve r fo r Log is ti cs Exp res s, a c om pa ny owne d b y

Ram on , andha d n o kn owl ed ge of a ny dru g- tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it ie s. OnJu ne 17 , 20 03 , sh ortl y aft er h e st art edwork in g fo r Ram on , he was to ldto dri ve a lo adof c ab ba ge s fr om Texa s t o New York . The tru ckwas a lre ady lo ad edby the ti m e th atPere z arr iv ed . Perez te st ifi edth athe was s to pp edat aweig h s ta ti on in Lou is ia nabe cau se th e ICC
nu m be r on hi s p ap erwo rkdi d n otm at ch th e ICC nu m be r on hi s tru ck . The of fic ers sea rch edhi s t ru ck

bu t d idno t fi ndan y

co nt rab an d, an d h e was all owe d t o le av e aft er p ay in g a$5 00 fin e. Whe n h e rea ch edth e n ex t wei gh st at io n, t he re
were o ffi cers with d og s s ta nd in g b y . The o ffi cers sea rch edhi s t ru ckwit h t he aid of th e d og s, b utdi d n otfin d anyth in g. Aft er t wo h ou rs , Perez was p erm it te d t o le av e th e se co ndweig h s ta ti on . Dur in g cl os in g arg um en ts , de fen se co un se l qu es ti on e d why no ne of th e in ve st ig at or s wen t to th e se co nd weig h st at io n to fin d ou t wha t happ en ed du rin g th e
se arch of Pere z’s tru ck
. Co un se l ob se rv ed th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t cal le d an y of
4th e weig h st at io n pe rs on ne l to te st ify. In reb ut ta l, th e pr os ecu to r ob se rv ed th at Pere z

al so ha d th e po wer of subp oe na , an d co ul d ha ve pr es en te d ad di ti on al wit ne ss es if he be li ev ed th at th ei r te st im on y wou ld ha ve b e en he lp fu l to hi s de fen se . The jury returne d ave rd ic t o f gu il ty. The di st ric t co urt de ni ed Pere z’s § 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut ho ld in g an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . The di st ric t cou rt con cl ud ed th atco un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to pr es en t te st im on y fro m th e weig h st at io n of fic ia ls
. The co ur t ob se rv ed th a t th e of fic ia ls “ ob vi ou sl y di d no t di sc ov e r m ari juan a in Pere z’s tru ck , so th ei r te st im on y
wou ld ha ve ad de d no t h in g in th at reg ard .” Alt ho ug h te st im on y th at dr ug -s ni ffi ng do gs were us ed in th e se arch wou ld ha ve he lp ed Pere z’s de fen se , th e co ur t ob se rv ed th at Pere z ha d fail ed to co m e fo rward wit h a pr of fer th at an y su ch sea rch oc cu rred
. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it was n o t u n r e a so nabl e fo r co un se l to av oi d cal li ng th e of fic ia ls be cau se th ey m ig ht well ha ve te st ifi ed th at th e drug d og s were no t us ed du rin g th e se arch , as Age nt Mu rp hy ha d su gg es te d in hi s tes ti m on y . The co ur t al so ob se rv ed th at co un se l was ab le to su gg es t du ri n g c l o si ng arg um en ts th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t cal l th e weig h st at io n of fic ia ls be cau se it ha d so m et hi ng to hi de
. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at co un se l’s tri al st rat eg y was no t so un reas on ab le as to be co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t. II.
5An i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m pre se nt s a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw
an d fa ctth atwe rev ie w de no vo . Pay ne v. Uni te d Sta te s , 56 6 F .3d12 76 , 12 77 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . To pr ev ai l o n a n i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce cl ai m , a de fen da ntm us t sh ow b ot h t ha t h is co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , andth atth is de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedhi s d efen se . St ri ckl an 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 pe rfo rm an ce, a d efen da ntm us t s ho w th atco un se l ac te d u nr eas on ab ly in l ig htof pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s. Id

. at 6 88 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 65 . There is a “ st ro ng pr es um pt io n t ha t co un se l’s co nduc t fa ll s wi th in th e wid e ran ge of r eas on ab le pr of es si on al ass is tanc e,” an d arev ie win g c ou rt m us t m ak e ev ery effo rt “ to el im in at e th e d is to rti ng effe ct s o f hi nd si gh t.” Id

. at 6 89 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 65 . To
es tabl is h p reju di ce, “ [t]he de fen da ntm 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 een di ffer en t.” Id

. at69 4, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 8. “ A
reas on ab le pro babi li ty is a p ro babi li ty suf fic ie ntto un de rm in e co nf id en ce i n t he
ou tc om e.” Id

. In rev ie win g wh et he r co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , we gi ve pa rti cu la r de fere nc e to co un se l’s d eci si on s o n m at te rs of tria l s tra te gy. Rog er s v. Za nt , 13 F.3d38 4, 3 86 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) ; see al so Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at69 0, 1 04
6S.Ct . at 2 06 6 (“ [S]trat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er t ho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on of l aw an d

fact s re le va ntto pl au si bl e o pt io ns are v irtua ll y un ch al le ng ab le .”). “ Whi ch wit ne ss es , if an y , to cal l, an d wh en to cal l t he m , is th e ep it om e o f a s tra te gi c de ci si on , anditis on e th atwe wil l s el do m , if ev er, s eco ndgu es s.” W at er s v. Th oma s , 46 F.3d15 06 , 15 12 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) ( en ba nc ). “ ‘T he m ere f actth at ot he r wit ne ss es m ig htha ve be en av ai labl e o r th atothe r te st im on y m ig htha ve be en el ic it edfro m

th os e who tes ti fie d i s n ota su ffi ci en t g ro un d t o p ro ve in effe ct iv en es s of co un se l.’” Id. at 1 51 4 (q uo ti ng Fos te r v. Du gg er , 82 3 F .2d40 2, 4 06 (11 th Cir
. 19 87 )). Co un se l’s d eci si on s ar e en ti tl edto les s d efer en ce i f th ey are n otth e res ul t o f in fo rm edin ve st ig at io n. “ [S]trat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er l es s tha n c om pl et e in ve st ig at io n a re re as on ab le pre ci se ly to t he ex te ntth atreas on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en ts supp or t t he li m it at io ns on in ve st ig at io n.” Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at 69 0- 91 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 66 . “ In ot he r wor ds , cou ns el ha s a dut y to m ak e rea so nabl e in ve st ig at io ns or t o m ak e a rea so nabl e d eci si on th atm ak es parti cu la r in ve st ig at io ns un ne ces sa ry .” Id

. at69 1, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 6. Th e rea so nabl e in ve st ig at io n s ta nd ard“ refl ect s t he real it y th atlawyers d o n oten

joy th e b en efi t o f
en dl es s t im e, en erg y

or f in an ci al res ou rces .” Rog er s , 13 F.3dat 3 87
.

7Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm . Becau se th e

di st ric t co ur t d idno t h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng , we vi ew th e fac tu al all eg at io ns in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Pere z, an d a ss um e th atco un se l d idno t i nv es ti ga te wha t the weig h s ta ti on off ic ia ls ’ te st im on y

wou ldbe
. Se e Dow ns v. McNei l , 52 0 F.3 d 1 31 1, 1 31 3 n .3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Even if c ou ns el di d n otin ve st ig at e th e weig h s ta ti on off

ic ia ls , hi s fa il ur e to do so di d n otam ou ntto de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce. Co un se l kne w th atth e in te rcep te d t el ep ho ne cal ls an d t he tes ti m on y of Garci a an d S pe ci al Agen t M ur ph y wou ldsh ow t ha t Pe rez’s t ru ckha d b een
se arch edan d t ha t n o m ari juan a h adbe en fou nd . There fo re, t he re was no ne edto cal l t he weig h s ta ti on off ic ia ls to co rro bo rat e th atfact . Mor eo ve r, th ere wer e o th er
so ur ces of e vi de nc e sh owi ng th atth e o ffi ci al s u se d d ru g- sn iff in g d og s t o s earc h Pere z’s truc k. Du rin g o ne of t he in te rcep te d c al ls , Prim o- 2 s ta te d t ha t h e h adsee n do gs at the weig h s ta ti on , andPere z h im se lf t es ti fie d t ha t t he weig h s ta ti on of fic ia ls ha d u se d d og s t o s earc h h is tru ck . In ad di ti on , cou ns el was abl e to
su gg es t dur in g h is clo si ng arg um en t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h adno t ca ll edth e wei gh st at io n o ffi ci al s t o t es ti fy be cau se th ei r te st im on y

wou ldha ve be en fav or ab le to Pere z’s cas e. Loo ki ng at t hi s ca se wit h t he be ne fitof h in ds ig ht , itm ig htha ve be en a go od id ea fo r co un se l t o c al l t he weig h s ta ti on off ic ia ls to co rro bo rat e Per ez’s t es ti m on y 8ab ou t the dru g- sn iff in g d og s, as itap pe ars th atth e jury haddo ub ts ab ou t Pe rez’s cred ib il it y . Prio r to th e tr ia l, h owe ve r, co un se l co ul d re as on ab ly hav e co nc lu de d th atth ere was no ne edto in te rv ie w th e wei gh st at io n o ffi ci al s b ecau se th ere al read y was p le nt y

of e vi de nc e ab ou t wh athapp en edat t he weig h s ta ti on . Se e St ri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 9, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 5 (“ A fai r as se ss m en t o f at to rn ey pe rfo rm an ce re qu ire s t ha t ev ery effo rt b e m ad e to eli m in at e th e d is to rti ng effe ct s of hi nd si gh t, t o re co ns tru ctth e ci rcu m st an ces of c ou ns el ’s cha ll en ge d c on du ct , an d t o e va lu at e th e co nduc t fr om co un se l’s p ers pe ct iv e atth e ti m e.”). Pere z h as no t o ve rco m e th e “ st ro ng pre su m pt io n” th athi s co un se l’s co nduc t fel l “ wit hi n t he wid e ran ge of r eas on ab le pro fes si on al ass is ta nc e,” an d, t he refo re, he ha s fa il edto est ab li sh de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. Se e Str ic kkl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 9, 10 4 S .Ct. at20 65 . In l ig htof t he for eg oi ng , itis un ne ces sa ry forus to ad dr es s whe th er Pe rez c an est ab li sh pre jud ic e. Se e id

. at69 7, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 9 (ex pl ai ni ng th ata co urt n eedno t ad dr es s t he pre jud ic e p ro ng if t he de fen da ntha s
no t es tabl is he d d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, an d v ic e v ers a). Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y no t h ol di ng an
ev id en ti ary he ari ng in th is cas e. Se e McNa ir v. Ca mpb el l , 41 6 F .3d12 91 , 12 97 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (“ A di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to gra ntor d en y anev id en ti ary he ari ng is rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n.” ). An ev id en ti ary he ari ng is no t
9requi redif “ th e m ot io n a ndth 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 at

th e p ris on er i s en ti tl edto no rel ie f.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (b ). Here, ev en when th e fact s ar e v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Pere z, he ha s n otest ab li sh edth at hi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . Thu s, t he re was no ne edforth e d is tri ct
co ur t t o h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . W e aff

irm th e d en ia l o f Pere z’s § 2 25 5
m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

10