NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION Fi le Name: 08a 0295n.0 6 Fi led : Ma y

28, 2008 No. 05- 2743 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IX TH C IR CU IT
JOS EPH BEN JAM IN TAY LOR , I II, Peti ti oner-A ppel lan t,

v. UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Res pondent -A ppel lee

. / On ap p e a l from the Uni ted S tates District C ourt for the W este rn Di str ic t of M ic hig an

BEF OR E: RY

AN , SI LER , and C OLE, C ircui t J udg es. RYA N , C i r c u i t J u d g e
. The peti ti oner appeal s t he di str ic t court’ s jud g me nt dis mis si ng hi s mot ion to v acat e hi s s entenc e under 28 U. S.C

. § 2255, arg uin g thathe w as deni ed hi s r ig ht t o tr ial co unsel as guaranteed by the Si xth Amendment. W e c oncl ude t hat the petitio ner w as no t den ied ef fective assistance of

coun sel and w e w ill af

f irm the district
cour t’ s j udg ment. I. Jos eph Be nja min Tay lor , I II, w as ind ic ted on four count s of t ra ff ic ki ng in coc ain e and
ma rijuana and one coun t of posse ssing a firea rm as a con v icted f elon . During the jury v oir dire, t he prosec utor

us ed one of his peremptor y ch all eng es to ex cl ude th e o nly Afri canA m e ri c a n t h e n re m a in in g o n t h e ju ry ve n i r e
. T a ylo r p ro m p t ly o bje c t e d , ci t in g B a t s o n v. Kentuc ky , 476 U .S. 79 (1 986)

. The prosec utor g av e sev er al non- ra ce re lat ed reason s for(N o. 05 -2 743) - 2 -

excluding the juror, and T aylor respo nde d tha t the prosecu tor’s reason s w ere pret extual. T he d istrict court d e n ie d t h e B atso n cha llenge and told T aylor tha t he cou ld renew his obj ect ion after

a full j ur y w as sel ect ed, b ut be fore t hey w er e s eated. Af ter the jury

w as sea ted , Ta y lor infor m e d t h e c o u rt that h e w ant ed to renew his Bats on c hal len g e. The tr ial jud g e ru led thatthe obj ect ion w as unti mely , and st ated that, in any ev ent, he w oul d hav e deni ed the obj ect ion as meri tl ess
. At the t ri al’ s c oncl usi on, t he jury ret urne d a guilty

verdict against T aylor on all f iv e cou nts in the indictm ent and the cou rt sent enced hi m to a tot al of 420 months ’ impr is onment. Tay lor now appeal s. II. Tay lor arg ues that his att or ney ’s fail ur e to re new the Bats on c hal len g e before the jury w a s s e a t e d d e n i e d h i m h i s S i xt h A me n d me n t r i g h t t o t h e e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of
coun sel. A def end ant claiming he w as de nied his constitu tiona l ri ght to receive reaso nab ly eff ect iv e as si sta nce of co u nsel mustdemons tr ate b oth t hat h is att or ney ’s co nductw as
cons ti tuti onal ly

defic ie n t a n d tha t he w as pr eju dic ed by the defici ent p er

formance. Str ic kl and v . W ashi ng ton, 466 U .S. 668, 687 ( 1984)

. III . Ass uming w it hout deci din g that the Batson chal len g e w as made unti mely and that
couns el w as therefore de fici ent, i t is cl ear thatTay lor

su ff er ed no pr eju dic e bec ause the district court ruled that it w ould have denie d the B atso n obje ction even if it had be en tim ely
ass erted. To es tabl is h tha t he w as pr eju dic ed by his couns el’ s e rror , Tay lor “ must show tha t the re is a reaso nab le proba bility that , but for coun sel’s u npro fession al errors, the resu lt of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. ” Str ic kl and, 466 U .S. at 694

. S in ce the(N o. 05 -2 743) - 3 -

unti meli ness of the o bje cti on d id n o t a f f ectthe outc ome of the p ro ceedi ng , w e c oncl ude that Tay lor

w as not d e n ied eff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el, and acc or din g ly aff ir m the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s j udg ment. W e ackn owl edge th at th e E leventh Circuit has ad opt ed a n “outco me on ap pea l” app roach in ev alua ting in e f f e c tiv e assista nce o f

coun sel claims w here the alleged ly def icient con duct resulted in a failure to prese rv e an issue for app ellate rev iew

. See Davis
v . Sec’y for Dep’t of

Corrections, 34 1 F.3d 131 0 (11th Cir . 200 3). W e de cline to ad opt this approach. IV. W e A FFIRM the dis tr ic t c our t’ s j udg ment.