[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 10353 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 7:12

- cv - 90125

- HL

- TQL ; 7:10

- cr - 00028

- HL

- TQL

- 1
RICKY GIDDENS, Petitioner

- Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________ (September 18, 2014) Before HULL , MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 42 Ricky Giddens , a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Giddens moved to vacate his sentence

as unco nstitutional because the district court failed to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 at his sentencing. The district court dismissed Giddens’s motion as procedurally barred beca use he failed to raise his arguments either at sentencing or on direct appea l. The court also denied Giddens’s r equest to amend his motion with a claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not challenging his sentence at sentencing or on direct appeal
. We granted a certificate of appealability to determine whether the district court erred in dismissing Giddens’s motion as procedurally barred w ithou t address ing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
. We affirm. W e review the denial of a motion to amend a pleading for an abuse of discretion. See Brown v. Joh nson , 387 F .3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). “Leave to amend a [pleading] is futile when the [pleading] as amended would still be properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary judgment for the defendant.” Cockrell v. Sparks , 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assist ance of counsel, a movant must establish that counsel’s performance was deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness , and the movant suffered prejudice as a result of the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 68 7−88, 104 S. Ct.

Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 2 of 43 2052, 2064

− 65 (1984)
. The standard governing counsel’s performance is “reasonableness under prevailing professi on al norms.” Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. We have explained that “the deference afforded an attorney’s decision is great and the bar for proving a Sixth Amendment violation is high.” Brownlee v. Haley , 306 F.3 d 1043, 1059 (11th Cir. 2002). In the light of the strong presumption in favor of counsel’s competence, a movant who alleges ineffective assistance of counsel must establish that “no competent counsel would have taken the acti on that his counsel did take.” Chandler v. United States , 218 F.3d 1305, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) ( en banc ). It is well settled that the failure to anticipate a change in the law will not support a claim for inef fective assistance of counsel. United States v. Ardley , 273 F .3d 991, 993 (11th Cir. 2001). The rule applies even if the claim, based upon anticipated changes in the law, was reasonably available when counsel failed to raise it. See Pitts v. Cook , 923 F.2d 1568, 1572

– 74 (11th Cir. 1991). T he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Giddens’s request to amend his motion to allege a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
. U nder our then

- controlling precedent , United States v. Gomes , 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2010), at the time of Giddens’s sentencing and direct appeal, he was not entitled to be sentenced und er the lower m andatory minimums provided in the Fair Sentencing Act
. A ny failure by counsel to anticipate the change in decisional law in Dorsey v. United States , 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), does not support Giddens’s

Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 3 of 44 claim of ineffective assistance. See Ardley , 273 F.3d at 993. A nd because counsel was not ineffective, granting Giddens leave to amend his motion w ould have been futile. See Cockrell , 510 F.3d at 1310. T he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Giddens’s request to amend his m otion
. AFFIRMED . Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 4 of 4