FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 30, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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 48 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -2 18 06 -MGC, 1 :0 3- cr-2 01 55 -MGC- 1

JAVIER GARC IA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 30 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, PRYOR, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ja vi er Garc ia , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s

m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t h is sen te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 . He co nt en ds th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to (1) ob ject t o the go ve rn m en t’s s ub m is si on of a ll eg ed ly “ ta in te d” tra ns cri pt s t o b ot h the jury an d m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al s wh o e va lu at edhi s co m pe te nc y be fo re tria l, (2 ) hi re an in de pe nd en t p sycho lo gi stto ev al ua te hi s co m pe te nc y , and(3) reque stdi sc ov ery ab ou t anall eg edco nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t i n the cas e. Garci a al so co nt en ds th atth e di st ric t co urt v io la te d C li sb y v. J on es , 96 0 F .2d92 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (enbanc ), by fai li ng to ad equa te ly dis po se of a ll th e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s h e rai se d i n h is habe as pe ti ti on . I. Afte r a jury tri al , Garci a was co nv ic te d o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t to di st rib ut e fi ve ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 ; co ns pi racy to a ffec t co m

m erce by rob be ry , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a); an d c on sp ira cy

to us e an d c arry a firea rm du rin g andinrel at io n t o adru g tra ffi ck in g c rime, in v io lati on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( o) . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed hi m to 20 0 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t an d 5 y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. Garci a ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on s, ch al le ng in g o nl y th e g ov ern m en t’s i m

pe ach m en t o f a co
2co ns pi rat orat t ria l. We affirm edth os e co nv ic ti on s. Un it edSta te s v . Garci a, 27 1

F. App ’x 90 4, 9 05 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (u np ub li sh edop in io n) . Garci a th enso ug hthabe as rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 a ss ert in g fo ur gr ou nd s: (1) th e g ov ern m en t s ub orne d p erjury an d s ub m it te d t ai nt edev id en ce t o th e g ran d jury

an d a t tria l; (2) th e g ov ern m en t ac te d o ut rag eo us ly by “ supp lant in g” a wit ne ss ; (3 ) th e g ov ern m en t t am pe redwith e vi de nc e; an d (4 ) de fen se co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to (a) m ov e to di sm is s the in di ctm en t b as edonth e m is co nduc t al le ge d i n g ro un ds 1 thr ou gh3; (b) co nduc t a p ro pe r in ve st ig at io n; (c) hi re an in de pe nd en t p sycho lo gi st ; (d ) ob ject t o p erjuredtes ti m on y ; (e ) m ov e to supp res s t ai nt edev id en ce; (f) o bjec t t o h is “ il le ga l” sen te nc e; (g) pu rs ue an in sa ni ty defen se at t ria l; (h) hi re an ex pe rt t o ana lyze trans cri pt s o f rec or de d co nv ers at io ns , trans la te d fr om Sp an is h t o En gl is h, af

te r be in g i nf

orm edth atth e tra ns cri pt s wer e in accu rat e; (i) ap pe al any of t he se is su es ; an d (j) fo rwardhi m hi s cri m in al fil e. Thi s m at te r was refe rredto a m ag is tra te jud ge , who is su eda rep ort reco m m en di ng th atGarci a’s pe ti ti onbe de ni ed . On th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l g ro un ds , th e subjec t o f th is ap pe al , th e m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndth at Garci a’s cl ai m s o f co un se l erro r were n otpre jud ic ia l o r were m erel y

co nc lu so ry

3al le ga ti on s tha t wer e “be reft ” o f rec or d s up po rt. Garc iaob jecte d t o the m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d a ss ert ednu m ero us Cli sb y vi ol at io ns . The di stric t co urt co nduc te d ade no vo rev ie w andad op te d the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort. Garc iafil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al an d am ot io n fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity , ask in g the di st ric t co urt t o a ll ow h im to ap pe al all th e is su es he rai se d i n h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n andhi s o bjec ti on s t o the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d Gar ci a a ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity as t o “ Gro un d IV” on ly, whi chis hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l cl ai m s, b utde ni editas t o

“ Gro un ds I, II, an d II I.” Thi s C ou rt d is m is se d Gar ci a’s ap pe al forlac k o f pr os ecu ti on inJu ne 20 11 . Garci a subm it te d am ot io n t o e xp an d the cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity , bu t tha t m ot io n was no t fi le d wi thth e Co urt b ecau se he ha d n otm ov edto rei ns ta te th e ap pe al . In Au gu st20 11 th is Co urt g ran te d Gar ci a’s m ot io n t o re in st at e h is ap pe al bu t h e d idno t the reaf

te r m ov e to ex pandth e certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity . Garci a co nt en ds th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to : (a ) pr ev en t ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua to rs an d the jury fro m rev ie win g “ ta in te d” tra ns cri pt s; (b) hi re anin de pe nd en t p sycho lo gi st ; (c ) reque stdi sc ov ery ab ou t an all eg edco nf id en ti al in fo rm an t i n the cas e. He als o c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt v io la te d C li sb y by

4ad op ti ng th e m ag is tra te ’s rep ort, wh ic h fa il edto co m pl et el y di sp os e o f ev ery cl ai m he rai se d i n h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n. 1 II. A. W e rev ie w de n ov o the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on anin effe ct iv e-as si st an ceof -co un se l cl ai m

as am ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct . Payne v. Un it edSta te s, 56 6 F .3d12 76 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). To m ak e a s uc ces sf ul cla im un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, a d efen da ntm us t s ho w th at(1) hi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d (2 ) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edhi s d efen se . Stri ck landv. Wash in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7, 1 04 S.Ct . 20 52 , 20 64 (19 84 ). To es tabl is h p reju di ce, “ th e p et it io ne r m us t s ho w th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il ity

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.” M arqua rdv. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 42 9 F.3 d 1 27 8, 1 30 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (qu ot at io n m ark s o mitte d) . Whe n e va lu at in g
“Our revie w on the merits of a [habeas] petition is l imited to thos e issues spec ified in a 1 cer tificate of appea lability .” Pardo v. Sec ’y , Fla. D ep’t of Corr ., 587 F.3d 1093, 1103 ( 11th Cir. 2009). Ne ither the district cour t nor this Court has issued Garc ia a c ertifica te of a ppeala bility on his Cli sby

claims. Ther efor e, we do not reviewthose claims her e. Murr ay v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250 ( 11th Cir. 1998).

5pr ejud ic e, th e co urt s ho ul d l oo k a t the “ en ti re ev id en ti ary pi ctur e.” See Agan v.

Si ng le tary , 12 F.3d10 12 , 10 19 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). The p et it io ne r wil l n otcarry hi s bu rd ento est ab li sh pre

jud ic e b y rai si ng “ba re al le ga ti on s o f de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce.” Yec k v . Goo dwi n, 9 85 F.2d53 8, 5 42 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). B. Fi rs t, Garc iaco nt en ds th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e b y no t o bjec ti ng to Garci a’s ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua to rs ’ rev ie w of tran sc rip ts fro m au di o andvi de o su rv ei ll an ce dur in g arev ers e st in g o pe rat io n. Gar ci a cl ai m s the tra ns cri pt s wer e al te redto m is at tri bu te st at em en ts to hi m . He als o c on te nd s tha t h is co un se l s ho ul d ha ve m ov edfora m is tri al on ce p ro se cu to rs off eredth os e tr an sc rip ts as e vi de nc e to th e jury. Dur in g the rev ers e st in g o pe rat io n, M ia m i-Da de po li ce o ffi cers reco rd ed nu m ero us di sc us si on s wi th Garci a as he pl an ne d wh athe th ou gh t wo ul d b e a fo ur m an , arm edrob be ry

of anarco ti cs de al er t o s te al 25 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne . Garci a’s ba re al le ga ti on s tha t the tra ns cri pt s wer e al te redwitho ut id en ti fy in g wh ic h s ta te m en ts were m is at tri bu te d t o h im fai ls to m eethi s p reju di ce bu rd en . He als o h as no t s ho wn tha t b utforth e al le ge dl y alt eredtra ns cri pt s h e wou ldno t h av e b eenfou ndco m pe te ntto st an d tria l. At l eas t fo ursep arat e rev ie ws of Garci a fo un d h im

co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. The fir stps y ch ol og is t, a p riv at e pr act it io ne r, fo un d tha t h e was fei gn in g s ch iz op hr en ic ha ll uc in at io ns . Eval ua to rs 6atth e Fed eral Med ic al Cen te r in Bu tn er, No rth Caro li na , who ass es se d h im ne xt , al so in it ia ll y

be li ev edhe was m al in ge rin g b efo re the y co nc lu de d tha t h e was no t co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. The y rev ers edth atpo si ti on , ho wev er, wh enfed eral pr os ecu to rs forward edth em affi da vi ts of t wo o f Garci a’s co -d efen dant s i n the pl an ne d ro bb ery who st at edGarci a h adin te nd edto fei gn m en ta l i ll ne ss if pr os ecu te d. Pro se cu to rs als o fo rward edth e ev al ua to rs tra ns cri pt s o f au di o and vi de o s urve il lanc e o f Garci a dur in g the rev ers e st in g o pe rat io n. Two l at er ev al ua ti on s b y

a fed eral m ed ic al cen te r in Mi nn es ot a an d apri va te Flo rid a ps y ch ol og is t al so co nc lu de d h e was co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. Garc iaha s n ot pr ov enth atth e tr an sc rip ts —an d n otth e aff id av it s—were the cau se foreit he r th e Bu tn er ev al ua to rs ’ rev ers al on Garci a’s co m pe te nc y to st an d tria l o r th e co m pe te nc y de te rm in at io n b y

th e two fin al ev al ua to rs . Lik ewis e, Garci a can no t sh ow tha t h is co un se l’s fa il ur e to m ov e fo r a m is tri al fol lo win g the pre se nt at io n o f th e al le ge dl y

tai nt edtra ns cri pt s p reju di cedhi s ca se . His c ou ns el ob jecte d t o the tra ns cri pt s’ subm is si onto th e jury at tr ia l, an d the di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth e pr op er re m edy

was acurat iv e in st ru ct io n. Fo ll owi ng th e p ro se cu ti on ’s off eri ng of th e tr an sc rip ts as e vi de nc e to th e jury anddu rin g the ge ne ral ch arg e to th e jury at th e cl os e o f tr ia l, the di st ric t co urt t ol d the juro rs th atth ey were t o d et erm in e whe th er the tra ns cri pt s ac cu rat el y refl ect edth e co nv ers at io ns an d the sp eak ers ’ 7id en ti ti es ba se d o n the ev id en ce. Garci a h as no t s ho wn co un se l erro r m uc h l es s a pr ejud ic ia l o ne . Seco nd , Garci a co nt en ds hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to hi re an in de pe nd en t p sycho lo gi stto de te rm in e h is m en ta l co m pe te nc y fortri al . The cru x of Garci a’s arg um en t i s tha t the fin al do ct orto ev al ua te hi m , Merry Habe r, a pr iv at e Fl or id a p sycho lo gi st , was n otin de pe nd en t b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t ap pa ren tl y

reco m m en de d h er. Aga in , hi s b are a ll eg at io ns are i ns uf fic ie ntto m eet hi s p reju di ce b ur de n. Se e Yeck , 98 5 F .2dat 5 42 . Garci a p res en ts no ev id en ce th atHabe r was bi as ed . Garci a al so ne gl ect s the factth atev ery do ct orwho rev ie wedev en tu al ly cam e to th e sa m e co nc lu si on : h e was co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. Garci a h as no t s ho wn tha t an “ in de pe nd en t” ps y ch ol og is t wo ul d h av e rea ch eda di ffer en t co nc lu si on . Thi rd , Garci a co nt en ds th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to reque st di sc ov ery ab ou t a c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t al le ge dl y in vo lv edinth e cas e who , acco rd in g t o Gar ci a, pr ey edup on Garci a’s m en ta l p ro bl em s t o re cru ithi m in to th e pl an ne d ro bb ery. Evenif Gar ci a’s cl ai m s wer e co rrec t, the y are o f no co ns ti tu ti on al co ns eque nc e. The g ov ern m en t p res en te d s ig ni fic an t ev id en ce ag ai ns t Gar ci a attri al , sp eci fic al ly his rep eat eddi sc us si on s ab ou t p lann in g the ro bb ery, hi s p res en ce atth e p lann edrob be ry sce ne , andth e to ol s o f th e ro bb ery 8fo un d o n h im , onhi s co ns pi rat or s, an d wi th inan d ju stou ts id e th ei r ve hi cl es . 2

Bas edon all of t ha t ev id en ce, Garc iacan no t s ho w any preju di ce re ga rd in g di sc ov ery ab ou t the co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t’s ro le . Info rm at io n re la ti ng to a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t wh o a ll eg ed ly preyed upo n Gar ci a’s m en ta l i ns tabi li ti es co ul d b e m at eri al if Gar ci a h adpre se nt edanin sa ni ty defen se at t ria l, wh ic h h e d id no t. Garc iado es arg ue th athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pre se ntan in sa ni ty defen se , bu t h e wai te d t o ra is e th atis su e inhi s re pl y bri ef. Tha t i s t oo la te ; the is su e is waiv ed . Herrin g v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 39 7 F .3d13 38 , 13 42 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (“ [A]rgu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e ina rep ly brie f are no t pr op erl y be fo re a re vi ewin g c ou rt.” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). AFFIRMED.

Specifica lly , Gar cia ha d a stockingmask hidden in his right rea r pants pocke t. The other 2 men who traveled with him to the planned r obbery scene had a c ollapsible baton, a wa lkie-talkie, and latex glove s, all conce aled in some manne r. In the ca r Ga rcia was ridingin office rs found a stun gun, a

roll of duct tape , a wa lkie-talkie, a nd a pair of g loves. Another c ar that his coconspirator s were ridingin contained a knife, a pair of g loves, and a

can of pepper spray . On the ground nea

r the fr ont passeng er door of that ca r, off icer s found a loade d .357 Magnum revolver . 9