NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0488n.06 No. 08-2073 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
KI RK L AN AM , Petitioner,
v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B EF OR E: GU Y, RO GE RS, a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. PER CU RI AM
. Following a jury

tri al , p et i t i o ner K irk L anam wa s convicted of three counts of computer intrus i o n in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)( A)(i) and sente nced to twe nty -one months of incar c e r a ti o n . T h e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l d e mo n s tr a te d th a t L an a m g a in e d u n a u th o r iz e d a c c e s s to the computer sy stem of Air Source One, Inc. and used it to acce ss Total Mortg ag e Corporation’s computer sy stem. Once he g ained c on t rol of Total’s sy stem, L anam disable d its firewa ll and
overw helmed Total’s te lephone sy stem throug h the use of “ ping f lood” commands. After his conviction, but before sentenc ing, L anam ob ta in e d n e w c o u n s e l. There afte r, L anam did not appeal, c hoosing instea d to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleg ing ine ffe ctive assistanc e of trial counsel. The district c ourt held an evidentiar y hear ing on L anam’ s § 2255 petition at which it denied L anam a

n opportunity

to t es t i fy
. T he district judg e rule d that L anam wa s barr ed fr omNo. 08-2073

Lanam v. United States

- 2 - testifying at the § 2255 evidentiar y hear ing be cause he did not testify at trial. At the c onclusion of the hea ring , the district court de nied L anam’ s § 2255 petition. L anam timely appea ls. The district c ourt g rante d a cer tificate of appea lability reg arding two issues: “( 1 ) w h et h er thi s c ourt e rr e d in ru lin g that Pe tit ion e r c ou ld n ot te sti fy a t the e vid e nti ary he ari ng c on du c te d on his claim of inef

fec tive as s i s tance of trial counse l at the evidentiar y hear ing on the 2255 Motion, and (2) whe ther Petitioner wa s denied the e ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel during plea ne g otiations and at trial.” I. On appe al, L a

n a m a rg ues that the district cour t committed error

requiringreve rsal by

denying him an opportunity

to testify at the § 2255 evidentiary hear ing r eg ardinghis ineffe ctive assistanc e of counse l claim. We ag ree . I t is un dis pu te d th a t L anam in vo ke d h is r ig ht n ot t o te sti fy duri ng his c ri min a l tr ia l. T he fi rs t issue in this appea l is whether L anam’ s decision not to testify at trial bar s his ability to testify at the § 2255 evidentiar

y hear ing. We hold that it does not. Duringthe § 2255 e v id e nti a r y h e a r in g , p e ti ti o n e r ’s counse l called L anam to testify , proff ering his testimony

as “a n expert as well as a f

act witness.” Counsel intended for L anam to testify as an “expert” r eg ardingthe amount of damag es incurr ed as a result of his criminal offenses and as a fact wi tne ss f or dis c us sio ns he ha d w ithhis tr ia l c ouns e l. A t the he ari ng , the dis tr ic t c ourt dis c us se d w ith counsel the issue of

Fifth Ame ndment privileg e and the rea fter r uled that “I ’m not g oing to let Mr. L anam testify , period” :No. 08-2073

Lanam v. United States

- 3 - TH E CO UR T: [W]ha t’ s g oin g to h a pp e n if [re sp on de nt’ s c ouns e l] Mr
. Te a ll w ants to cross-e x amine him as to his cre d i b i l i t y as to what substantively he did? I s he g o i n g t o t a k e t h e F i f

t h A m e n dm e n t ? MR. MI NOCK: [petiti oner’ s counsel] Ithink that – T H E C O U R T : I s h e g o i n g t o t a k e t h e F i f t h A m e n dm e n t ? MR. MI NOCK: Ithink that since the scope of the testimony is lim ited – T H E C O U R T : N o , i s h e g o i n g t o t a k e t h e F i f t h [ A m e n dm e n t ] ? MR. MI NOCK: I t would depend on how you rule, Judge. T H E C O U R T : O nw h a t ? MR. MI NOCK: I f y ou rule that he is permitted to testify – TH E CO UR T: He ’s no t pe rm itt e d to te sti fy un le ss h e ’s pr e pa re d to te sti fy

fu lly to any and every question Mr. Teall asks him, including those that relate to the crimes he wa s convicted of

. MR. MI NO CK : Just so the r ecord is clear, my position w ould be that he’s entitled to testify in a li mited fashion
. TH E CO UR T: I ’m

no t goin g t o le t hi m, I ’m no t g oin g to l e t hi m pl ay g a me s w ith this Court and I ’m not g oing to let you play g ames with this Court, Mr. Minock. You are now trea ding in ve ry

dang erous ter

ritory
. MR. MI NOCK: I f I

could have just a moment to consult with m y client. TH E CO UR T: No, I’m not going to let Mr. L anam t estify, period. A defendant who did no t te sti fy at t ria l c an ’t c om e ba c k

an d in thi

s p ha se of t

hec as e no w te

sti fy . No w ay . T h a t ’ s ana

b u s e o f t h e s y s t e m . M r . T e a l l , d o y o ud i s a g r e e ? MR. TEAL L : Idon’t disag ree , Your Honor
. THE COURT: No, sir. That’ s playing g ames. He didn’t testify at trial. He ’s not g oing to c ome bac k as an e x pert now a nd try to minim ize t h e d o l l ar damag es that wer e alleg edly

incurre d either at trial or in restitution. No, sir.No. 08-2073

Lanam v. United States

- 4 - (Emphasis adde d.) I t appea rs that the district cour

t was conc erne d about allowing petitioner to testify as an
e xpe rt re g ard ingdama g e s. Ho we ve r, pe tit ion e r’ s c ouns e l r ais ed th e is su e of a llo wi ngL anam to testify as a fa ct witness reg ardingconver sations he had with his trial counse l, stating that “ for the
rec ord my

position i s that this all relates to whethe r counse l’s advice to h im not to t estify was
rea sonable unde r th e ci rc u m s t ance s.” Rather than addr ess the question direc tly , the cour t called Andre w Wise, L anam’ s trial counsel: “I want Mr. Wise to come up he re a nd testify . Iwant Mr. Wis e to tell me what ha

ppened. We a

re g oing to stop playing g ames. We ar e go i n g to cut to the chase rig ht now. The Court is calling Mr. Wise as a witness.” The distri ct co u rt ’s ref

usal to allow L anam to testify at the § 2255 hea

ring raises two subissues: (1) whe ther the district court erre d by denying petitioner an opportunity to testify as an e x pert reg ardingthe damag es stemming f rom the crimes for which he wa s convicted, a nd (2) whe ther the district court er

red by denying pe titioner an opportunity to testify reg ardinghis trial counsel’s a lleg ed i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce b as edu p o np et i t i o n er ’s d i s cu s s i o n s wi t h h i s t ri al co u n s el
. T h e d i s t ri ct j u d ge
was c oncer

ned about L anam “ playing g ames” and abu s i n g t h e proc ess by testifying at a § 2255 hear ing r eg ardingmatters to which he could have testified at trial. How ever , on appea l, petitioner
argue s th a t “ the re wa s n o o ne mor e kn ow le dg e a ble ” tha n h e re g ard ingthe dama g e c a us e d b y his
co mp u t er i n t ru s i o n s , an d W i s e agr ee d wi t h t h at s t at em en t d u ri n g h i s t es t i m o n y at t h e § 2 2 5 5 h ea ri n g. Most importan t l y , the district court c lear ly err ed in bar

ring petitioner fr om testify ing reg ar d in g h is in e f

f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e o f c o u n s e l c la im
. We h a v e h e ld th a t in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n ce ofNo. 08-2073

Lanam v. United States

- 5 - counsel c laims are best broug ht in a § 2255 proce eding beca use of the ne ed to deve lop a full rec ord bey ond what would be a

vailable on a

direc t appea l of the criminal conviction. See U nited States v. Br own , 276 F.3d 211, 217- 18 (6th Cir. 2002). I n the present case , the di strict judge offe red, belatedly , to allow L anam to testify , stating that “I don’t want this rec ord t o display any ref usal on my part to allow [petiti oner] to testify so I ’m g oing to permit y ou on a sepa

rate rec ord to ca ll Mr. L anam and ask him a ny questions y ou want. I f there ’s an objec tion by

the g overnme nt, we’ll dea l with it, this is a separ ate r ecor d, so that he has not bee n d en i ed h i s rig ht to testify .” Howe ver, at that juncture, pe titioner had appe aled the de nial of bond pending appea l, and thus the district court conc luded that the not i ce of appe al depr ived it of jurisdiction over the c ase. We hold that the district court committed err or re quiring reve rsal by denying L anam a

n opportunity

to testify reg ardinghis ine ffe ctive assistance of counsel claim at the § 2255 e videntiary hear ing. T here fore , we v ac at e t h e § 2255 judgment and r emand with instructions that the district court a llow petitioner to testify in a limited manner re g ardinghis ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim. On re mand, the district cour t is inst ructe d further

to exercise its discretion to de cide whe ther petitio n e r qu a li f ie s a s an e xp e rt w it

n e s s r e g ar d in g h is c la im

a s to th e a mo u n t o f

lo s s an d w h e ther such evide nce is re levant to his ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claims. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

is i n th e be st p os iti on

to r e c e ive L anam’ s te stimony and we ig h h is
cre dibilit y

and alleg ed expertise. Onc e the recor d is fully develope d, the di strict court shall rule deNo. 08-2073

Lanam v. United States

- 6 - novo on the m erits of the § 2255 petition. There afte r, this court will have a full rec ord for

revie w in the event ther e is a fur

ther a ppeal. II. Next, petiti oner a

rg ues that he w as depr ived of the e ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel during plea neg otiations and at trial. To pre vail, petitioner must establish that his counsel’s per forman ce was “def icient,” mea

nin g t h at “counsel made e rror s so serious that counsel wa s not functioning a s the ‘counse l’ g uara

nteed the de fenda

nt by the Six th Amendment.” Strickland v. W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 668, 687 (1984). Petitioner must then demonstrate that he wa s prejudice d by “showingthat
cou ns el’ s err or s w e re so se ri ou s a s to de pr ive the de fe nd ant o f a fa ir tr ia l, a tr ia l w ho se re su lt i s reliable .” Id
. Howeve r, this issue is not ripe beca use we have or dere d the § 2255 evidentiar y hear ing continued; thus, the recor d i s n o t compl ete. See Pankey v. United States , N o . 8 9

- 6 5 7 3 , 1 9 9 0 WL 98036 at *2 (6th Cir. J uly 16, 1990) (de eming matters not deve loped at t h e § 2 2 5 5 evidentiar y hear ing a s unripe). III
. For these re asons, we va cate and remand for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.