FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ANUARY 12, 20 10 J OHN P. LEY ACT I NG CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 24 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 08 -2 28 67 -CV-J EM, 05 -2 07 76 -CR- JEM ARKEEM ATEBA W ILTSHIRE,
Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, 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 fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 12 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:InUni te d S ta te s v . W il ts hi re, 2 38 Fed .App x. 5 57 (11 Cir . 20 07 ), we th affi rm edpe ti ti on er’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es forco ns pi racy to i m po rt a ndto po ss es s co cai ne an d fo r th e subs ta nt iv e im po rta ti on an d p os se ss io n o ffen se s. Pet it io ne r th erea fte r m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o s etasi de hi s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces pu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 o n the gro un d, am on g o th ers , th athi s t ria l at to rn ey ha d re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b y erro ne ou sl y

advi si ng hi m th at , if fo un d g ui lt y

of a ny of th e ch arg es co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ct m en t, h e wou ldbe sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r. Had co un se l t ol d h im th athe wou ldno t 1 ha ve be ensen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, pe ti ti on er as se rte d, h e wou ldno t h av e pr oc eed edto tri al ; i ns te ad , he wo ul d h av e en te reda pl ea o f gu il ty. The di stric t co urt re ferr edth e m ot io n t o am ag is tra te jud ge , who he ldan ev id en ti ary he ari ng at wh ic h p et it io ne r an d h is two co urt-app oi nt edatt orne y s te st ifi ed . Peti ti on er t es ti fie d t ha t, i n d is cu ss in g wi th th e se co ndatt orne y ap po in te d to rep res en t h im

th e p os si bi li ty of en te rin g agu il ty ple a, co un se l s ho wedhi m th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es an d t ol d h im th athe “ sc or edou t t o 3 60 to li fe” a ndth athe wou ldbe sen te nc edas a“ care er o ffen de r be cau se [he ] ha d t wo p rio rs .” Giv enth is ad vi ce, p et it io ne r sa id , he c ho se to st an d t ria l. His att orne y tes ti fie d a ndde ni ed Suc ces si ve att orne y s wer e ap po in te d t o re pr es en t p et it io ne r. The 1 erro ne ou s ad vi ce was all eg ed ly pro vi de d b y th e se co ndatt orne y . 2gi vi ng pe ti ti on er s uc h a dv ic e. He sa idth athe to ldpe ti ti on er tha t t he ch arg es

lo dg edag ai ns t h im

carr ie d am an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f te n years a ndth at , du e to hi s cr im in al hi st ory , he wo ul d n otqu al ify for s afet y -v al ve rel ie f fro m th at m in im um . Accor di ng to th e atto rn ey , pet it io ne r el ect edto go to tri al be cau se he

“ co ul dn ’t fath om

tak in g t ha t [t en -y ear m an da to ry m in im um ] se nt en ce.” The m ag is tra te jud ge , rel y in g o n t he att orne y ’s tes ti m on y an d re jecti ng pe ti ti on er’s as no t cr ed ib le , reco m m en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d en y rel ie f. The di st ric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on an d d en ie d pe ti ti on er’s § 22 55 m ot io n i n fu ll . Peti ti on er fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al , andth e di st ric t co urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on on e is su e: whethe r pe ti ti on er’s at to rn ey

ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b y in co rrec tl y ad vi si ng pe ti ti on er tha t h e wou ldbe sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r if he pl ed gu il ty. A def

en da ntis en ti tl edto effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l u nd er the Six th Am en dm en t. St ric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 84 -8 5, 1 04 S.Ct . 20 52 , 20 63 , 80 L.Ed.2d67 4 (1 98 4) . The two- part S tri ck la nd te stforin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l ap pl ie s i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r co un se l was in effe ct iv e du rin g t he pl ea p ro ces s. Hil l v . Lockha rt, 4 74 U.S. 52 , 57 -5 8, 1 06 S.Ct . 36 6, 3 69 - 70 , 88 L.Ed.2d20 3 (1 98 5) ; s ee Co ul te r v. Herrin g, 6 0 F .3d14 99 , 15 04 n.7 (11 th 3Ci r. 19 95 ) (n ot in g t ha t Hi ll ap pl ie s wh ena de fen da ntde ci de d n otto acce pta pl ea

of fer a ndpro ceed s t o t ria l). Fi rs t, t o p rev ai l o n a n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m ,
“ th e d efen dantm

us t s ho w th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . This requi res sh owi ng th atco un se l m ad e err or s s o s eri ou s t ha t co un se l was no t fu nc ti on in g a s th e ‘cou ns el ’ gu aran te edth e d efen da ntby the Six th Am en dm en t.” Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 64 . Seco nd , th e d efen da ntm us t es tabl is h t ha t h e su ffer edpre

jud ic e as a res ul t o f th atde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. Id . ; s ee Co ul te r, 60 F.3 d a t 1 50 4. In th e cas e atha nd , pet it io ne r m us t s ho w th at“ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s erro rs , he wo ul d . . . ha ve pl ead edgu il ty and wou ld[no t] hav e in si st edon go in g t o t ria l.” Hi ll , 47 4 U.S. at59 , 10 6 S .Ct. at37 0; se e Co ul te r, 60 F.3dat 1 50 4. As n ot edab ov e, th is ap pe al tu rn s o n wh ethe r th e m ag is tra te jud ge , andth us th e d is tri ctco urt, co m

m it te d c le ar erro r in reject in g p et it io ne r’s te st im on y an d acce pt in g h is att orne y ’s. In rev ie win g s uc h acla im , we def er t o t he ir c red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns . Devi ne v. Un it edSta te s, 5 20 F.3d12 86 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . McPh ee, 3 36 F.3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). W e d o s o

“ ev enif we wo ul d h av e d eci de d t he cas e d iff eren tl y .” McPh ee, 3 36 F.3dat 1 27 5 (quo ta ti onom it te d) .

4W e fi ndno ba si s i n t he reco rdforreject in g t he cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns m ad e fo ll owi ng th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng in th is cas e. W e aco rd in gl y affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t. AFFIR MED.

5