NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0335n.06 No. 06-1265 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
P ATRICE DONALDSON, P etitioner- Appellant,
v. UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COU R T F OR

TH E EAST ERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN P ER CURIAM

BEF ORE: KEITH , BO G G S, a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. Per Cu ri a m. On October 24, 2001, Patrice Donaldson wa s convicted in fe dera l court of conspiringto distribute heroin and c ocaine . Donaldson appe aled his convic tion, and in 2004 we aff irmed. See U

nited States v. Donaldson , 110 F. App’ x 603 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). Donaldson then moved under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the court to vacate hi s sentence on the g rounds of prose cutorial misconduct and ineffec tive assistance of counsel. On Dec ember 2, 2005, the district court de nied Do na lds on ’s mot ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n is su e d a

c e rt if ic a te of a pp e a la bil it y on ly

a s to Do na lds on ’s se c on d c la im, ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, a

nd no t a s to pr os e c uto ri a l mi sc on du c t. Donaldson aske d us to enlarg e the c ertificate of a ppeala bili t y , a request we de nied. Donaldson moved for r econside ra

tion, and on Marc h 7, 2008 we de nied his motion, t hus restrictingDonaldson’s appea l to the di strict court’s denial of hi s § 2255 motion on the grounds of ineffe ctive assist ance of
c ouns e l.No. 06-1265

Patrice Donaldson v. U

nited States of America

- 2 - “In revie wing th e d en i al o f a 28 U.S.C . § 2255 motion, we apply a de novo standard of
re vie w t o th e le g a l is su e s and up ho ld t he fa c tua l f

ind ing s o f t

he dis tr ic t court

un le ss t he y are c le arl y
err oneous.” Hamblen v. United States , 5 9 1 F. 3 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 3 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Benitez v. U nited States , 521 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2008) ). Havingduly considere d the ar g uments and the re cord, we f ind Donaldson’s appe al to be mer itless. As the district court noted in its De ce m b er 2 , 2005 op ini on , in

or de r t o d e mon str ate that he wa s d e pr ive d o f t he ri g ht t o e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, Donaldson must demonstrate both: (1) that counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient; and (2) that such defic ient perf

ormanc e pre

jud i ce d t h e def

ense. See Strick

land v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Dona ldson claims t h at h i s co unsel failed to objec t to alleg ed instance s of prosec utorial mis c on du c t. I

n af fi rm ing his c onvic tio n, ho we ve r, we e xplic itl y fo un d “n o me ri t in [Do na lds on ’s ] claim of fla g rant prose cutorial misconduct,” and conc luded that “[Donaldson’s o]ther claims of pr os e c uto ri a l mi sc on du c t, i nc lud ingre pe a te d u se of le a din g qu e sti on s and

vo uc hin g fo r w itn e sse s,
are without merit.” Donaldson , 110 F. App’ x at 610, 6 1 0 n . 3
. As we have alr eady reje cted Donaldso n ’ s c o n te n ti o nth at h is tr ia l w a s ma r r e d b y p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d

u c t, D o n a ld s o nc an n ot demonstrate that his counsel’s fa ilure to obje ct to the prosec ution’s actions in any way prejudice d his defense , and so ca

nnot meet the sec ond Strickland prong . Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Do na lds on ’s mot ion

to va c a te his sentenc e.