2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-23-2010 

# U SA v . T roy H olmes P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3811

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . T r o y H o lme s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 897. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/897NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

______________ N o. 09- 3811

______________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TR O Y H O LM ES, A ppel l ant

______________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 08- cr - 00495- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I

______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 11, 2010

______________ B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2010)

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antT r oyH ol m es ( “H ol m es ”) appea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence fr om t he D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. H e c o n ten d s th a t: (1 ) th e re is2

i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor thi s convi ct i on; ( 2) the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ydeni ed the j ury ’ s r eques tt o acc es s the t es t i m onyof a w i tnes s ; ( 3) hi s s ent ence of 300 m onths of i m pr i s onm entw as unr eas onabl e; and ( 4) hi s tr i al couns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent o f c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e , a n d d e n yHo l me s ’ i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m, w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o hi s r i ghtt o r ai s e the cl ai m pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. I . BA CKGROUND W e w ri t e sol el yfor the b enef i tof the part i es and recou nt onl ythe essenti al fact s. O n Ju ly2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , at a p p ro x im a tely2 :3 0 a .m ., Iss a O u a ttara p a rk e d h is c a r o n S ix th St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a. A s he and hi s gi r l fr i end, J el ene Radul ovi c, exi t ed the ca rand b e g a n wa l k i n g , M i l t o n Br o wn a p p r o a c h e d th e m a n d p o i n t e d a g u n a tOu a t t a r a ’ s f a c e . On B r ow n’ s comm and, O uatt ar a dr opped hi s m oney , carkey s , and ce l l phone on the side w alk. B row n then instructed O u att ara to “g et ou t of h ere . ” (A p p . 4 4 . ) T hr oughoutthi s encount er , H ol m es s t ood nextt o B r ow n butnevers poke. A tt he t i m e, H ol m es s t ood s i x fee tt al l and w ei ghed tw o hundr ed s i xtypounds . H e w as , as O u att ara d esc ri b ed h im , “p h y sicall yb igg er” than B row n . (A p p . 4 9 . ) W hen O uatt ar a r an aw ayfr om the s cene , he found O ffi cer s B r i an Lauf and M i chae l J achi m s ki nearbyand r eport ed w hathad happe ned. W i th O uatt ar a i n the backs eatof thei rcar , the off i cer s began dr i vi ng t o i nves t i gat e. T heydr ove w i thi n fi ve f e e to f Ou a t t a r a ’ s c a ra n d s a w Br o wn i n th e d r i v e r ’ s s e a ta n d Ho l me s s e a t e d b e s i d e h i m,3

i n th e f r o n tp a s s e n g e rs e a t . A s h o r tc a rc h a s e e n s u e d b u te n d e d q u i c k l y , wh e n Br o wn c r a s h e d Ou a t t a r a ’ s c a r . Br o wn a n d Ho l me s th e n f l e d th e v e h i c l e o n f

o o t , i n th e s a me d i r e c t i o n . Of

f i c e rJ a c h i ms k i r a n a f

t e rth e m. U l t i m at el y , both B r ow n and H ol m es w er e captur ed nea rby . O uatt ar a i dent i fi ed Ho l me s t o th e p o l i c e a n d l a t e rt e s t i f i e d th a th e wa s c o n f

i d e n ti n h i s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n . He fur thert es t i fi ed thathe made hi s i dent i fi cat i on w i thi n t en mi nut es of the ca r j acki ng. Fol l ow i ng a thr ee da ytr i al , a j uryfound H ol m es gui l tyof thr ee c har ges : ( 1) c o n s p i r a c yt o c o mmi ta n o f f e n s e a g a i n s tth e Un i t e d S t a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 371; ( 2) ai di ng and abe t t i ng a ca r j acki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2119 and 2; and ( 3 ) a i d i n g a n d a b e t t i n g th e u s e a n d c a rry i n g o f a f i r e a r m d u r i n g , a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o , a c r i me of v i olence, i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . §§ 92 4(c) (1) and 2. A ft er the v erdi ct , H olm es, pr ocee di ng pro se , m oved forj udgm entof ac qui t t al , pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 29( c) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on and s ent ence d H ol m es t o 300 m o n th s o f

im p ri s o n m e n t. H o lm e s f ile d th is tim e ly ap p e a l. I I . J UR I S DI CT I ON T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n , p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We have ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n , p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d to r evi ew the s ent ence , pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742. III . A N A L Y S IS A.4

H ol m es appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s R ul e 29 mot i on forj udgm entof acqui t t al , ar gui ng thatther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s us t ai n a gui l tyver di ctforanyof the thr ee c ount s on w hi ch he w as convi ct ed. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe deni al o f a R u le 2 9 m o tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . B ro d ie , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A pp l y i ng the sam e st and ard as the D i stri ctC ou rt , w e “revi ew the record i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on t o det erm i ne w hetheranyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have found pr oof of gui l t [] bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbas ed on the ava i l abl e evi dence . ” I d. (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). It is “ im m a ter ial” th a t th e e v id e n c e m a yp e rm it a “l es s s i ni s t erconcl us i on” than the one the j urym ade. U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 294 F. 3d 473, 478 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . “To sus t ai n the j ury ’ s ver di ct , the evi dence does notneed t o be i ncons i s t entw i th everyconcl us i on s ave thatof gui l t . ” I d. R ather , a fi ndi ng of insu ff ici en cyo f th e e v iden ce “sh o u ld b e c o n fin ed to ca ses w h ere the p rose cu ti o n ’s fa il u re is cl ea r. ” B rod ie, 4 0 3 F . 3 d at 13 3 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H o lm e s p o sits th a t h is “ m e re p re se n c e ” a t th e sc e n e is in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on forei therthe cons pi r acyt o car j ack c ountorthe ai di ng and abe t t i ng a ca rj ac k ing co u n t. B ec au se th e third c o u n t, § 9 2 4 (c)(1), r eq u ir es th e u se o f a firearm d u rin g , o r in re latio n to , a c rim e o f v io len c e , H o lm e s a rg u e s th a t, sin c e th e re is i ns uffi ci entevi dence forhi s car j acki ng offe ns e, the § 924( c) ( 1) convi ct i on al s o cannot s t and. T o p rov e c o n sp ir ac y , the g o v ern m en t m u st sho w “tha t th e a ll eg ed co n sp ir ators5

sh are d a u n ityo f p u rpo se, th e inten t t o ac h ieve a c o m m o n g o al, an d an ag ree m en t t o w o rk t ogethert ow ar d t he goal . ” U ni t ed St at es v. R ey er os , 537 F. 3d 270, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2008) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “The exi s t ence of a c ons pi r acycan be i nferr ed fr om evi dence of r el at ed fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s fr om w hi ch i tappea r s as a r eas onabl e and l ogi cal i nfer ence [] thatthe ac t i vi t i es of the part i ci pant s . . . coul d nothave be en ca rr i ed on exce ptas the r es ul tof a pr econc ei ved s cheme orcomm on under s t andi ng. ” B r odi e, 403 F . 3 d at 13 4 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H ol m es w i l l i ngl yacc om pani ed B r ow n thr oughoutthe comm i s s i on of the cr i m e, and af t erw ar d. A ddi t i onal l y , hi s pr es ence , part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof hi s comm andi ng s i ze, lik e lya m p lifie d th e th re a t th a t B ro w n p re se n ted to th e v ictim s. A ra tio n a l ju ryc o u ld m a k e th e re a so n a b le a n d lo g ica l in f e re n c e f ro m th e e v id e n c e th a t H o lm e s h a d a n in ten t to achieve a com m on go al w i th B row n an d shared a u nityof p urpose w i th h i m . R ey eros, 5 3 7 F .3 d a t 2 7 7 . A lth o u g h H o lm e s d id n o t sp e a k o r c a rrya g u n , h is a c tio n s s u g g e st a l evel of part i ci pat i on fargr eat erthan “mer e pr es ence . ” See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. L eon, 739 F. 2d 885, 893 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( “A l though ther e maybe i nnocentexpl anat i ons con si st ent w i th these fact s, w e t hink t hat a r easona ble j urycou l d infer fr om these c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t [ th e d e f e n d a n t] w a s n o t p re s e n t f o r s o m e in n o c u o u s re a s o n . . . .” ). T h e re is s u f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt H o lm e s’ c o n v ictio n o n th e c o n sp ira c yc o u n t. H ol m es s i m i l ar l yar gues thatther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s us t ai n hi s ai di ng and abett i ng convi ct i on. T o es t abl i s h ai di ng and abe t t i ng, “the governm entm us tpr ove: ( 1)6

th a t th e su b sta n tiv e c rim e h a s b e e n c o m m itt e d ; an d (2 ) th a t th e d e f e n d a n t ch a rg e d w ith ai di ng and abe t t i ng knew of the comm i s s i on of the s ubs t ant i ve off ens e and a ct ed w i th the i ntentt o fac i l i t at e i t . ” U nit ed S t at es v. S oto, 53 9 F . 3d 19 1, 19 4 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). “B ecause c o n sp ira c ya n d a id in g a n d a b e tti n g b o th re q u ire th a t th e d e f e n d a n t sp e c if

ica llyin ten d to fur therthe s ubs t ant i ve off ens e . . . ouranal y s i s i s the s ame forboth. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C arb o , 5 7 2 F . 3 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A l though H ol m es r ei t er at es hi s pos i t i on thathi s “mer e pr es ence ” does not es t abl i s h thathe s peci fi cal l yi nt ended t o fur therthe ca r j acki ng, as di s cus s ed above , the re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t H o lm e s w a s m o re th a n a “ m e re p re se n c e .” A ra tio n a l ju ryc o u ld have f ound, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatH ol m es ai ded and a bett ed the ca r j acki ng beca us e he pa r t i ci pat ed i n t he cr i m e “a s s om ethi ng he w i s he[d] t o br i ng aboutand thathe [s ought ] byhi s act i on t o m ake s ucce ed. ” Sot o, 539 F. 3d at194. Fi nal l y , beca us e s uffi ci entevi dence exi s t s t o s uppor ta convi ct i on forai di ng and abett i ng a carj acking, H olm es’ argum ent r egardi ng his § 9 24 (c) (1) con vict i on al so fai l s. B . H o lm es a lso c o n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred w h en itd en ied th e jury ’s r eques tforacc es s t o O ffi cerJ achi m s ki ’ s t es t i m ony . H ol m es di d notvoi ce thi s obj ect i on t o the D i s tr i ctC our tdur i ng the tr i al . I n l i ghtof H ol m es ’ fai l ur e t o obj ect , w e r evi ew t he r e c o r d f o rp l a i n e r r o ro n l y . Uni t e d St a t e s v . Ol a n o , 5 0 7 U. S. 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . To est abli sh a plai n err or, “t here m ustbe (1) ‘ err or, ’ ( 2) that i s ‘ plai n, ’ and (3) that ‘ affect[s]I n U ni t ed St at es v. Z ar i nt as h, w e s t at ed thatal though a tr i al courthas “br oad 1 d isc re tio n in d e c id in g w h e th e r to a c c e d e to a ju ry ’s r e q u e st f o r a re a d in g o f

tes tim o n y ,” its di s cr et i on t o denya r eques ti s l i m i t ed t o tw o r at i onal es : “fi r s t , thatr eques t s t o r ead t es t i m onym ays l ow the tr i al w her e the r eques t ed t es t i m onyi s l engthy ; s econd, that r eadi ng onl ya port i on of the t es t i m onym aycaus e the j uryt o gi ve thatpor t i on undue emphasi s . ” 736 F. 2d 66, 69- 70 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Shabazz , 564 F . 3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (sam e). W e f u rth er h eld th at t ec h n icali ti es a b o u t a j u ry ’s re q u e st— in th a t ca se , a ju ryre q u e st th a t as k e d to “ se e ” tes tim o n yra th e r th a n to h a v e it “r ead”

— ar e notan opportuni tyfor“unl i m i t ed di s cr et i on nott o offe rt o r ead the t es t i m ony to the jury . ” Z arintash , 7 3 6 F . 2 d at 70 . W e c au ti o n ed that “[ a]t th e v eryleast th e c o u rt sh o u ld h av e a sk ed the ju ryw h ethe r th e juro rs w an ted to h ea r th e testi m o n yrea d b ef o re d e ter m in in g th a t issu e f o r itse lf ” b e c a u se it i s “ th e re sp o n sib ili tyo f th e trial c o u rt to det erm i ne the exa ctcont our s of the j ury ’ s i nt er es ti n the t es t i m ony . ” I d. N o n ethe less, the D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to ex p lai n it s d ec isi o n to d en ythe ju ry ’s r eques t . T he r el evantpartof the r ecor d r evea l s onl ythi s s t at ementfr om the D i s tr i ct C o u rt: “M e m b e rs o f

th e ju ry , I h a v e y o u r n o te, a n d I’v e sh a re d it w ith c o u n se l. T h e n o te stat es: ‘C an w e h av e a cc ess to O ff icer Jac h im sk i’ s testi m o n yfro m co u rttr an scripts? ’ A n d it’ s s ig n e d b yth e f o re p e rs o n . U n f

o rt u n a te ly, w e c a n n o t m a k e th a t a v a ila b le to y o u . Y ou’ r e j us tgoi ng t o have t o us e y ourr ecol l ect i on of w hathe and otherw i tnes s es s t at ed 7 su b sta n tial rig h ts.’” Jo h n so n v . U n ited S tate s, 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 6 -6 7 (1 9 9 7 ) (a ltera tio n in o rig in a l) (q u o tin g O lan o , 5 0 7 U .S . at 7 3 2 ). G e n e ra lly , an e rro r a f f e c ts s u b sta n tial rig h ts w her e the err ori s “pr ej udi ci al , ” thati s , w her e the err or“af fec t ed the out come of t he di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs . ” O l ano, 507 U . S. at734. T he def endantbear s the bur den of es t abl i s hi ng s uch pr ej udi ce. I d. at734- 35. I f w e fi nd thata pl ai n err oraff ect ed the d e f e n d a n t’s s u b sta n tial rig h ts, w e m a ye x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n to c o rre c t th e e rro r if it “s er i ous l yaff

ect [s ] the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Jo h n so n , 5 2 0 U . S . at 46 7 (alt era ti o n in o ri g inal). A l though t he D i s tr i ctC our tm ayhave c om m i t t ed a pl ai n err orw hen i tdeni ed the j ury ’ s r eques tforacc es s t o O ffi cerJ achi m s ki ’ s t es t i m ony , H ol m es has nots how n thatt he 1d u ri n g th e tr ia l.” (A p p . 2 0 6 .)

C oncern aboutthe j ury ’ s col l ect i ve mem oryi s al l evi at ed bythe fa ctthatthe tr i al 2 l a s t e d o n l yth r e e d a y s , a n d th a tOf f i c e rJ a c h i ms k i t e s t i f

i e d o v e rth e c o u r s e o f

th e l a s tt wo day s of tr i al . A ddi t i onal l y , the s peci fi c part s of O ffi cerJ achi m s ki ’ s t es t i m onyi n w hi ch H o lm es f ind s su p p o rtfo r his ca se w ere n o t so d iscrete an d flee ti n g that the ju ry ’s re c o lle c tio n o f

th o s e p a rt s lik e ly d e p e n d e d o n th e tr a n s c ri p t o f h is te s tim o n y . 8 deni al of the j ury ’ s r eques taff ect ed the out come of hi s tr i al . G ener al l y , O ffi cer J achi m s ki ’ s t es t i m onybol s t er ed the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e, notthe def ens e’ s — he s poke a b o u t th e p o lic e c h a s e a n d id e n tif ie d H o lm e s a s th e p a s s e n g e r i n O u a tta ra ’s c a r. Ina sm u ch as th ere are asp ec ts of h is t esti m o n ythat m ayh av e w eigh ed in the d ef en se’s fa v o r, theyap p ea r t o b e m ino r an d w ere n o t l ikelyfo rgo tt en b ythe ju ry . M o re 2 i m por t ant l y , thos e as pect s ar e l i kel youtw ei ghed bythe fa ctthatO ffi cerJ achi m s ki w as n o t th e p ro se c u tio n ’s s o le e y e w itn e ss . O u a ttara a lso tes tifie d , an d h e w a s th e o n ly ey ew i tnes s w ho coul d pl ace H ol m es atthe s cene of the cr i m e. H ol m es hi m s el f s ugges t ed thatO uatt ar a pr ovi ded the pr os ecut i on’ s m or e s i gni fi cantey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony . ( See A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 19 (“T h is case w as p ri m aril yab o u t th e a cc u rac yan d reli ab il ityo f M r. O u a tta ra ’s id e n tif

ic a tio n o f

M r. H o lm e s a s th e s e c o n d m a n .” ).) W e d o n o t fi n d that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa il u re to rea d O ff icer Jac h im sk i’ s t es t i m onyback t o t he j urypr ej udi ced H ol m es . A ccor di ngl y , H ol m es ’ cl ai m i s deni ed. C . H o lm e s n e x t as se rts th a t h is s e n ten c e is b o th p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . W h e n re v ie w in g a s e n te n c e , w e a p p ly an a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd .9

U ni t ed St at es v. T om ko, 562 F. 3d 558, 567 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) . W e begi n by e n su rin g th a t th e se n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyre a so n a b le a n d , if it is, w e p ro c e e d to e v a lu a te i t s s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s . I d. A tboth s t ages , the partychal l engi ng the s ent ence bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng unr eas onabl enes s . I d. A se n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyre a so n a b le if th e se n ten c in g c o u rt d id n o t co m m it a s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , s uch as i m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng the s ent enci ng r ange unde r th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (“ G u id e lin e s” ) o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a telye x p lain the chos en s ent ence . I d. H ol m es ’ onl yar gum enti s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bynot lo w e rin g h is o f

f e n se lev e l b ytw o lev e ls f o r a “ m in o r p a rticip a n t” r o le, p u rsu a n t to G u id e lin e s § 3 B 1 .2 (b ). H ol m es m i s under s t ands the G ui del i nes . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed that , underG ui del i nes § 4B 1. 1 forcar eeroffe nder s , the advi s oryr ange f orH ol m es w as 3 6 0 m o n ths to li fe im p ri so n m en t. T h e o ff en se lev el red u cti o n that H o lm es se ek s fo r a m i norpart i ci pantr ol e i s i r r el evant . See U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 155 F. 3d 682, 684 & n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng m i norr ol e adj us tm enti s overw r i t t en bycar eeroffe nder p r o v i s i o n u n d e rp r o p e rs e q u e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f Gu i d e l i n e s ) . E v e n i f

g r a n t e d th e two l evel departur e, H ol m es ’ G ui del i nes cal cul at i on w oul d nothave c hanged. W e nexteval uat e the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of H ol m es ’ s ent ence . T o r evi ew a s ent ence fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , w e t ake i nt o acc ount“the t ot al i tyof the circu m stan ce s. ” T o m k o , 5 6 2 F . 3 d at 56 7 . W e g ive “ d u e d ef ere n ce to the d istri ct co u rt ’s10

det erm i nat i on thatthe [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) fac t or s , on a w hol e, j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” I d. at568 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Fur therm or e, w e “r ecogni ze that r eas onabl enes s i s a r ange, nota poi nt . A s l ong as a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the br oad r ange of p ossi ble s entences that can be co nsi dered reasonab l e i n li gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors, w e mustaff

i r m . ” U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 515 F. 3d 207, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i on and in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). H ol m es cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e bec aus e i tvi ol at es the par s i m onypr i nci pl e expr es s ed i n § 3553, w hi ch di r ect s court s t o i m pos e a s ent ence

“ su f f icie n t, bu t n o t g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ry ,” to c o m p lyw ith th e p u rp o se s s e t f o rth in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ol h o v s k y , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 5 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ; 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) . H e cl ai m s thathi s s ent ence i s “gr eat erthan nec es s ary ” bec aus e he w as

“ n o th in g m o re th a n a s ile n t o b s e rv e r.” (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 3 5 .) T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d H o lm e s to 3 0 0 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . I n doi ng s o, the D i s tr i ctC our tcar eful l ycons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s . Fori ns t ance , the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed H ol m es ’ “l ong and s er i ous cri m i nal r ecord. ” (A pp . 24 5. ) Th e D i stri ctC ou rtcon t em plat ed the “very , veryser i ou s” natur e of the cr i m es H ol m es had comm i t t ed, concl udi ng that“the publ i c nee ds t o be pr ot ect ed fr om [hi m ] ” bec aus e “c r i m es of thi s ki nd i nfec tthe qual i tyof l i fe i n the C i t yof Phi l adel phi a. ” ( I d. ) St i l l , the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence thati s s i xtym onths b e lo w th e m in im u m G u id e lin e s ra n g e a f ter f in d in g th a t 3 0 0 m o n th s w a s “ su f f icie n t” to11

fur therthe goal s of s ent enci ng. H ol m es ’ s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. D . L a stly , H o lm e s ra ise s a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im . H e c riticiz e s h is c o u n se l f o r n o t ca lli n g a n e x p e rt w itn e ss o n th e u n re liab ili tyo f e y e w itn e ss tes tim o n yto enhanc e hi s m i s t aken i dent i tydefe ns e. H ol m es i s al s o di s s at i s fi ed thataddi t i onal w i tn e s s e s , s u c h a s B r o w n , R a d u l o v i c , o ra n a l i b i w i tn e s s , w e r e n o tc a l l e d t o t e s t i f y. A n inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel claim req u ir es a sh o w ing that the c o u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t, a n d th a t th e d e f

ic ie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . L ew i s v. H orn, 581 F. 3d 92, 106- 07 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) ) . G ener al l y , thes e cl ai m s ar e pr oper l yr ai s ed i n a col l at er al att ack, pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, noton di r ectappea l . See M as s ar o v. U ni t ed St at es , 538 U . S. 500, 504- 06 ( 2003) ( expl ai ni ng that“§ 2255 i s pr efe r abl e t o a di r ectappea l ” for i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s beca us e tr i al r ecor ds ar e oft en “i ncompl et e ori nadequa t e” forthe adj udi cat i on of s uch cl ai m s and the tr i al courti s the forum bes ts ui t ed t o devel op the n ec essa ryfa cts). W e re v iew inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce claim s o n d ir ec t app ea l on lyw h ere the r ecor d i s s uffi ci entt o al l ow an eva l uat i on of the cl ai m w i thoutfurtherfac tual d ev elop m en t. U n it ed S tat es v . P o lk, 57 7 F . 3 d 5 1 5 , 5 2 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T he r ecor d her e i s i nadequa t e t o es t abl i s h ei therdefi ci encyorpr ej udi ce. H ol m es has nots how n t hatthes e w i tnes s es w er e ava i l abl e, thatthei rt es t i m onyw oul d have be en admi s s i bl e, orthatthei rt es t i m onyw oul d have be en hel pful t o hi s defe ns e. See M as s ar o,T hi s det erm i nat i on does notpr ej udi ce hi s abi l i tyt o r ai s e thi s i s s ue on a c ol l at er al 3 att ack pur s uantt o § 2255. 12 5 3 8 U . S . at 50 5 (reco g n izi n g that tr ial rec o rd “ m ayco n tai n n o ev iden ce o f a ll eg ed erro rs of o m i ssi on , m uch l ess the reasons un derl y i ng them ”). W e cann ot s pecu l at e on these m att er s . G i ven the i ns uffi ci encyof the r ecor d, H ol m es ’ cl ai m i s deni ed. 3 I V. CONCL US I ON Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above , w e af fi r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and the s ent ence .