NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-2239

_____________

LACY J. GOGGANS,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. Action No. 3-11-cv-06776)

District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

______________

Argued September 9, 2014

______________

Before: RENDELL, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: October 27, 2014)

Carolyn E. Isaac, Esq. [ARGUED]

Stuart T. Steinberg, Esq.

Dechert

2929 Arch Street

18th Floor, Cira Centre

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Counsel for Appellant
2

Mark E. Coyne, Esq.

Office of United States Attorney

970 Broad Street

Room 700

Newark, NJ 07102

Glenn J. Moramarco, Esq. [ARGUED]

Office of United States Attorney

Camden Federal Building & Courthouse

401 Market Street

Camden, NJ 08101

Counsel for Appellee

______________

OPINION

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

In his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Lacy J. Goggans (“Goggans”) 

sought relief on multiple grounds, all of which were denied by the District Court. This 

Court granted a certificate of appealability on two related questions: “(1) whether trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the District Court’s failure to submit [the 

conspiracy count] on special interrogatories or, in the alternative, for failing to request 

submission on special interrogatories, and (2) whether counsel was ineffective for failing 

to raise these same claims on appeal.” (J.A. 28.) For the reasons set forth below, we will 

affirm the District Court’s order. 

I. Background Facts

We write primarily for the benefit of the parties and recount only the essential 
3

facts.

Lacy Goggans, along with co-defendants Ronald Blackwell, Trenell Coleman, and 

Ryan Washington, were indicted for various offenses relating to nine violent bank 

robberies and the attempted robbery of a tenth bank. Goggans was convicted of

conspiracy to commit bank robbery; attempted bank robbery; two counts of using and 

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and one count of being a 

felon-in-possession. On direct appeal, a panel of this Court affirmed his conviction and

the two mandatory 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentencing enhancements, but remanded for 

resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. 

Goggans, 257 F. App’x 515, 517-18 (3d Cir. 2007). After resentencing, we affirmed his 

judgment of conviction. United States v. Goggans, 386 F. App’x 171, 174 (3d Cir. 

2010).

Goggans filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising various issues. The 

District Court denied the motion and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. A 

motions panel of this Court granted a certificate of appealability on the two related claims 

of ineffective assistance of counsel.1

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

 1 In his opening brief, Goggans raises a question as to the sufficiency of the 

evidence and claims that “the District Court committed a fundamental error of law by 

improperly sentencing Goggans twice under § 924(c).” (Br. for Pet’r-Appellant 31.) 

Since these issues are beyond the scope of the certificate of appealability, we may not 

consider them. Villot v. Varner, 373 F.3d 327, 337 n.13 (3d Cir. 2004); see also 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.1 (2011). 
4

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. “In a federal habeas corpus proceeding, we 

exercise plenary review of the [D]istrict [C]ourt’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly 

erroneous standard to the court’s factual findings. We review the District Court’s denial 

of an evidentiary hearing in a habeas case for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Lilly, 

536 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

III. Analysis

Goggans argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to 

request that the District Court submit to the jury special interrogatories on the conspiracy 

count. His second claim alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise 

this claim on direct appeal. According to Goggans, special interrogatories were needed 

to determine whether he had conspired to commit the completed robberies, the attempted 

robbery, or both.

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court established 

a two-part test to evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The first part of the 

Strickland test “requires [a] showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was 

not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id.

at 687. The second part specifies that “[t]he defendant must show that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability 

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694. “‘The purpose of the 
5

Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel is to ensure that a defendant has the assistance 

necessary to justify reliance on the outcome of the proceeding.’” Marshall v. Hendricks, 

307 F.3d 36, 107 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-92). “Because 

under Strickland either prong can be dispositive, if we can conclude that there is no 

prejudice — i.e., that even if counsel had not failed in the ways alleged, there is no 

reasonable probability that the outcome would be different — our analysis would be at an 

end.” Id.

On direct appeal Goggans argued that the criminal course of conduct included in 

the conspiracy count and the attempted robbery count “were not only continuous but 

involve[d] the same attempted bank robbery.” (J.A. 1073). According to Goggans, 

“[a]ppellant’s second conviction under § 924(c)(1) . . . involve[d] the same predicate 

offense included under the first conviction under § 924(c)(1) . . . and, thus, should be 

vacated.” (Id. at 1074). 

This Court has already reviewed the issue presented here and affirmed the two 

§ 924 convictions and sentences. As a result, we can find no prejudice resulting from 

either trial counsel’s or appellate counsel’s performance.

IV. Conclusion

We conclude that Goggans failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. 

We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.