File Na me: 08a0430n.06 Filed: Jul y

18, 2008 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION No. 05-3671 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
De nn is E va

ns , Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,
v. United States of Amer ica, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT C OUR T FO R THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B e fo re : G I L MA

N, RO GE RS, M c KE AG UE , Ci rc uit Judg e s. ROGERS, Cir c uit

Judg e . Pe tit ion e r De nn is Eva ns a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of his motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C
. § 2255, to va cate , set aside, or corr ect his se ntence
. Evans argues that h i s t ri al at t o rn ey

re n d er edco n s t i tu t i o n al l y i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s el b y n o tp u rs u i n g a particula r ave nue of impea chment with a Gover nment witness and by

not reque sting c erta in pre-tr ial statements of that witness. Evans also seeks a rema nd to c onduct disco v er y

an d an evidentiar

y hear ing to de termine whe ther such pr e-tria l statements exis t an d what impeac hment materia l they may contain. F or the followingrea sons, we af firm the judg ment of the dis t ri ct court and deny Evans’s r equest for

a re mand.No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 2 - Bac kgr ound
I n October

1997, petitioner De nnis Eva ns was indicted for, among othe r thing s, one count of conspira cy

to distribute more than 50 g rams of cra ck coca ine and four c ounts of distribution of
cra ck coc aine. L ater

that month, Evans’s trial counse l filed a re quest for discove ry from the Go ve rnm e n tu n d e r

F e d e r a l R

u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d

u r e 1 6
. E v an s ’ s a t t o r

n e y r e qu e s t e d

f a v o ra ble Bradymateria l, as well as “impeac hment matters aff ecting the Gover

nment’s ca se, including but not limit ed to the following :” the “statements [or] summaries of statements obtained by the Gover

nment or any law enf orce ment ag ency

concer n i n g the Def

endant’ s lack of involveme nt conce rning the commission o f the a lleg ed off ense a nd/or statement[s] or summaries of statement[s] conce rning suspects other tha

n the Def

endant in this matter,” a nd “the w ri tten or re corde d statements or
su mma ri e s th e re of

of any wi tne ss r e le va

nt t o the se pr oc e e din g s or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , h a ve a va ila ble
su c h s ta te me nts fo r i n c a me ra ins pe c tio n b y

the Cou rt purs ua nt t o Rule 2 6. 2, F e d. Rul e s Cr im. Procedur e.” Shortly there afte r, the Gove rnment re sponded that althoug h “De fenda nts are not e ntitled, prior to trial, to oral state ments of co- defe ndants or co- conspirator s,” “[ a] n y s u ch stateme nts or summaries existi ng in sufficient ve rbatim form to qualify for inclusion under

18 U.S.C. § 3500 [ the Jenc ks Ac t] wi ll b e pr ov ide d p ri or to c ro ss e xami natio n o f s a id w itn e ss. ” Th e Go ve rnme nt a lso
no te d th at “ a

de fe nd ant is n ot entitled to J encks A ct mater ial during pre- trial discovery ,” explaining that th e Jenc ks Ac t “ pr ov ide s th a t up on pr op e r m oti on

and or de r, the Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y mus tNo. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 3 - produce to the defe ndant, after a witness called b y t h e Un i t ed States has testifi ed in direct

exam ination , any

statement of the w itness in possession of the United States.”
At tr ia l, L e e Gi ll, the Go ve rnme nt’ s lea d witn e ss an d one of Ev ans ’s a lle g e d c o- c on sp ir a tor s, testified that he ha d sold cra ck to Evans roughly four to five times per month for a pproxi mately

one y ear in amounts varying be tween 7 a nd 125 g rams. Dur ing a

n ea rl i er i n terviewwith a probation of fi c e r fo r his Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt (P SR) , ho we ve r, Gi ll ha d ma de argua bly inc on sis te nt s ta te me nts
. I n th e int e rv ie w, Gi ll h a d n a me d v ari ou s in div idu a ls to who m he ha d sold c ra c k, bu t E va

ns ’s name was not on this list . Gill had also stated that he c ould not reca ll specific qua ntities sold.
Gill was cross- ex amined by both Evans’s attorne y

and the de fense attorney s repr esenting Evans’s c o-def

endants. Although E v an s ’s attorne y did not cross-examine Gill reg ardingthe perc eived inconsistenc y

betwee n his PSR statements and his in-court testimony reg ardinghis sales of c ra c k to Ev ans , s ome of the oth e r d e fe ns e a tto rn e y s no te d th is d isc re pa nc y a s it a ff e c te d th e ir clients. For

example, defe ndant Anthony Rouse ’ s a tt o r n e y p o in te d o ut d u r ingcross-e x amination that Rou se wa s n ot o n th e lis t of ind ivi du a ls that G ill ha d p ro vid e d to his pr ob a tio n o fficer du ri nghis PSRinterview, a

nd also noted Gill’s PSR state ment that he could not r eca ll the exact quantities he had sold to his customers. During cross-e x aminations by multipl e def

ense attorney s, Gill e x plained that, af ter he had be g un pr ov idi ngthe pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r w ithname s o f i nd ivi du a ls t o w ho m he had so ld crack , h is
a tto rn e y ha d a dv ise d h im t o s top and to r e fr a in f

ro m di sc us sin g oth e r c us tom e rs :No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 4 - Q: When y ou talked with [the probation office r], did he a sk y ou about some of the people that you sold either powde r or c rac k coca ine to? A: Ye s. Q: An d y ou

g a ve him a numbe r o f n a me s; r ig ht? A: I sta rt e d g ivi ng him a numbe r of name s until I wa s a dv ise d by my a tto rn e y no t to discuss nothing fur

ther a bout that issue.
JA 32 1- 22 . G ill a lso c la ime d th a t hi s atto rn e y ha d a dv ise d h im, pr ior

to h is PS R in te rv ie w, no t to discuss specific quantities with the probation office r, and claimed that this advice is the rea son he had told the probation officer that he could not re call spec ific quantities of cra ck sold. Gill admitted duri ngc ro ss- e xami natio n b y Rou se ’s a tto rn e y

that he ha d n ot t old t he pro batio n o ff ic e r t he tr uth when he advised the of

fice r that he c ould not reca ll specific qua ntities.
The de fense attorney s also cross-e x amined Gill reg ardingstatements he ha d made to var ious Gover nmen t ag ents and attorney s befor e trial. Gill testified that he ha d been inter viewed by Gover nment ag ents and attorney s befor e trial a nd that it had appeare d to him that the ag ents wer e taking notes of what he was te lling them. Gill a lso te stified, howeve r, that he did not revie w any of th o s e n o tes or re ports alleg edly prepa red by the Gover

nment and that his statements had not be en
rec orded. On May 29, 1998, Evans wa s convicted of one count of

conspi racy

to distribute over 50 g ra ms o f c ra c k c oc a ine and

of thr e e c ounts of

dis tr ibutin g crack c oc a ine . T he PSR attr ibute d to Evans a total of

74.1 g rams of c rac k coca i n e. Of that total, 42.5 g rams we re attributed based on Gill’s testimony ; 21 gr ams based on the testimony of Wil liam Welch, a conf idential informant; 3.5No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 5 - g rams base d on the testimony o f An d re w By rd, a c o-conspirator; and 7.1 g rams base d on the testimony of three underc over a g ents.
Ev ans ’s a tto rn e y

ob je c te d to the c a lcul ati on of 74 .1 g ra ms i n th e PSR, and

in p art ic ula

r t o the quantities attributed to Evans “base d on unsubstantiated testimony of single witnesses such as L ee Gill, Andre By

rd and the [confidential informant].” At the sentenc ing he aring , Evans’s attorney argued that Eva

ns should be held ac countable fo r n o m o re tha n 28.1 g rams: 21 g rams purc hased fr om Gi ll and 7. 1 g ra

ms s old to u nd e rc ov e r a g e nts . E va

ns ’s a tto rn e y

argue d th a t a

re a so na ble int e rp re ta tio n o f G ill ’s te sti mony y ie lde d a ma ximumof

on ly 21 g ra ms p ur c ha se d f

ro m G ill :
As Irea d Mr. Gill’s testimon y , h e wa s clea r that there was a

limit ed re la tio ns hip wi th Mr . Eva ns , an d indi c a te d fou

r or fi ve tr ans a c tio ns ov e r t he c ours e of a mon th o r s o, and tho se tr ans a c tio ns we re e a c h r e la tiv e ly low le ve ls, on e e ig hth to one quar

ter of a n ounce. Th e c or ro bo ratio n of that re a din g of Mr
. Gi ll’ s te sti mony is a c tua lly fo un d in An dr e B y rd ’s te sti mony . M r. B y

rd te sti fi e d tha t he he ard

De nn is E va

ns c omp la in about the quality

of the product that Mr. Gill had furnishe d, and Mr. B y rd hea rd Mr. Evans say he was not dealing with L ee G ill because the quality of the produc t wasn’t ri g ht. . . . [W ]hat Mr. By rd did was testify

to statements made by Mr. Evans which statements confirm that there wer e transac tions with Mr. Gill, but also confirme d a la c k o f sa tis fa c tio n with

tho se tr ans a c tio ns and , th e re fo re , w ou ld b e c on sis te nt w ith Mr. Gill’s statement that we didn’t do too muc h business toge ther, may be four or five transac tions in a month. So we believe that the evidenc e supports a r eadingthat there wer e four or five transac t i ons betwee n Mr. Gill and Mr. Eva ns, that those four or

five tra nsactions we re an e ig hth , at th e mos t a qu art e r, and

if we us e [the pr ob a tio n off ic e r’ s] e sti ma te of an e ighth of

an ounce , that would y ield 17.5 g rams of coca ine attributable to Mr. Ev ans ’ d e a lin g s w ithMr . G ill
.No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 6 - No , I be lie ve that Mr . E va

ns ’ t e sti mony

a c tua lly is slig htl y hig he r t

ha n th a t, Ibelieve his testim ony is closer to 21 g rams, and c erta inly that’s suffic ient evidenc e fo r t he Court to f ind 21 g ra ms o f t ra ns a c tio ns . J A 533-34. A total amount of 28.1 g rams would have give n Evans a base offense level of 28 unde r the fe dera l Sentencing Guidelines.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re je c te d E va

ns ’s int e rp re ta tio n o f G ill ’s te sti mony :

. . . I gat h er from Mr. Gill’s testimony that he wa s supply ing Mr . Evans fr om the summer of 1996 unti l the s ummer of 1997, and I believe a conservative e stimate of a time fra me would be June of ‘96 to June of ‘97. The quantity as desc ribed by

Mr. Gill rang ed fr om one eig hth of [an ounce] to one-four th ounce to one -half ounc e, and the re g ularity

was four to five times per month. Taking the most c onservative of those varia bles, Iwould conclude that Mr. Gill was selling Mr . Evans a mini m u m o f o n e four th ounce of

cra ck coc aine a minimum of four

times a month.
J A 542. The district c ourt conclude d that Evans wa s responsible for “something in the rang e of 380 to 400 gr ams of cr ack c ocaine ,” and e x plained that this level of sa les from Gill to E vans wa s “cor roborated by

a conside rable body of testimony reg arding the nature of Mr. Evans’ a ctivity during this period of time,” including the testimony of Andre By

rd. More over, Eva

ns himself had admitted during his sentencinghear ing that he had pur chase d cra ck fr om Gill in 1997: Q: Did y ou know L ee G ill in 1996 and 1997? A: Yes, I did. Q: Did y ou buy

coca ine from L ee G ill between the months of Ma y , 1996 and Dec ember

of 1996? A: No , I did n’ t.No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 7 - Q: Did y ou buy

coca ine from L ee G ill between the months of J anuar y 1997 and June of 1997? A: Ye s. Q: J anuar y of 1997 to J une of 1997? A: I t would have be en fr om J une to about the middle of this summer. Q: Duri ngthe mon ths of July or Au g us t of ‘ 97 , d id you buy c oc a ine fr om L e e Gi ll? A: Yes, I did. Q: How many

times did y ou buy

coca ine fr o m L ee Gi l l in the months of J uly and Aug ust of 1997? A: Twice
. Q: . . . How much c ocaine did y ou buy on [t he first] occa sion? A: The fir st occa sion would have be en an e ight- ball of cr ac k [3.5 grams] , and the second oc casion would have bee n 14 g rams of pow der.
J A 527-28.
De sp ite havin g c on c lud e d b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that E va

ns wa s r e sp on sib le for 380- 40 0 gra m s o f cr ack, the district court adopte d the probation officer ’s more c onservative
c a lc ulatio ns , “ [g ]ivi ngMr . E va ns the be ne fi t of

the do ub t,” and

ult imate ly

fo un d Eva

ns re sp on sib le f o r 5 3
. 1 g r a m s o f

c r a c k , s u s t a i n i n g E v an s ’ s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e 2 1 g r a m s b a s e d

o nW e l c h ’ s t e s t i m o n y. The c ourt sentenc ed Eva

ns to 262 months’ im prisonment using a n offe nse leve l of 34 and a criminal history cate g ory of VI . Evans’s of

fense level wa s determined usinga base o ff ense le vel of 32 for being responsible for 50 to 150 g rams of cra ck coca ine plus a two-leve l enhanc ement for possession of a f irea rm while selling cra ck. Evans’s conviction was aff irmed by this c ourt in July 2001, UnitedNo. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

Evans cla ims in hi s appellate brief that he filed the motion with the district court on May 19, 1 2003, but that it “does not appea r to have been pr operly

dockete d.” The Gover

nment acknow ledg es that such a motion was “ prepa red,” but claims that Evans’s motion “wa s never filed with the district c o u rt. ” T h e mo ti o nis n o t i nth e Jo in t A p p e n d ix. - 8 - States v. Evans , 1 5 F . App ’x 33 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 1) , a

nd the Sup re me Co urt den ied cert ior a ri in Dec ember , 2002.
I n May 2003, Evans prepa red a motion sty led “Motion Pursuant To Rule (6) A.B of Section 2255 Procee din[ g ]s,” requesting an evide ntiary hear ing a n d le a v e to c o n d u c t d is c o v ery

in prepa ration for his habe as petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His m o t i on soug ht production of Gove rnment documents relating to L ee Gill’s tr ial testimony in or der to suppor t his potential claim that his trial counsel “ was inef

fec tive for not havingthe Court compel the Gove r nme nt t o p r o duce” Gill’s pre-tr ial statements. For rea sons that are not clea r from the rec ord, Evans’ s motion was never dockete d, and

1 the dis tr ic t c ourt the re fo re did no t ru le on it. Al tho ug h the mot ion wa s ne ve r do c ke te d, Ev ans did ref er to it in his subsequent § 2255 petition.
On Dec ember 10, 2003, Evans filed a pr o s e § 2255 petition, sty led as a “motion to vacate , set aside o r co rr ec t sentenc e pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255.” This orig inal petition presented f our iss u e s r e lati n g to th e p e r f o r ma n c e o f E v an s ’ s tr ia l att o r

n e y , o n ly th e f o u rth o f w h ic h , e n titled “inef fec tive assistance of counse l at s en t en ci n g, ” is rele vant to this appeal. In the petition, Evans alleg ed that his trial attorne y “fa iled to object to the cour t sentencin g petitioner base d on false, misleading and inac curate information duringthe s entenc ing he aringfor r eleva nt conduct. The g overnme nt relied on L ee G ill’s trial testimony and the amount alleg ed in petitioner’s [PSR ].”No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 9 - On Janu ary 26 , 2 00 4, Ev ans pr e pa

re d a nd se rv e d on the Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y a mot ion to amend his orig inal petition to add four additional g rounds of inef fe ct i v e as s istance. This pe tition
wa s n ot d oc ke te d unti l A ugus t 16 , 2 00 4. On ly the thi rd a me nd e d g ro un d is re le va nt to thi s a

pp e a l: Evans alleg ed “[i]neffec tive assistance of counse l, Post -trial,” a rg uing that his trial attorney “unprof essionally failed to file a motion to dismiss char g es when the gover nment failed to produc e th e 30 2 rep ort s re lat in g to L ee Gi ll pu rsu ant to 18 U.S .C . § 35 00 .” A 30 2 rep ort i s an FBI investigation form containing interview note s made by the i nterview ing a g ent. See U nited States v. Nathan , 8 16 F .2 d 23 0, 23 6- 37 (6 th C ir . 1 98 7) ; United States v. Minsk y , 963 F.2d 870, 872 ( 6th Cir. 1992).
I n Fe bruar

y 2004, the Gover

nment responde d to Evans’s mot ion to supplement. Evans filed a “T rave rse Moti on to Gover nment Response” on May 3, 2004, at t he end of which he r equeste d an evidentiar y hear ing rega rd i n g h i s petition. This request for a n evidentiar

y hear ing w as neve r expressly ruled on by

either the mag istrate judg e or the district judge
. On Dec ember

28, 2004, t h e mag istrate judg e issued a Re port and Rec ommendation,
rec ommending that Evans’s suppl emental petition should be denied beca use i t was not timely

filed and that Evans’s initial four claims in his orig inal petition should be denied on the mer its. Rega rding Evans’s c laim in his original petition that his trial attorney was inef fec tive for f

ailing to objec t at sentenc ing to r eliance on Gill’s testimony , the mag istrate judg e conc luded that Evans’ s attorney had rende red e ffe ctive assistanc e bec ause he did object to the cour t’s deter mination that more than 50 g rams of c rac k was attributable to Evans.No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 10 - The district cour

t adopted the mag istrate judg e’s r ecommendations i n Ap ril 2005, denied Ev ans ’s pe tit ion s, and

dis mis se d h is c a se . T his c ou rt g ra nte d h is a pp lic a tio n f

or a g e ne ra l c e rt if

ic a te of appe alability , without identify ing a ny issue in particular
. On ap p ea l , E v an s s ee k s t o h av e h i s s en t en ce v ac at ed an d h i s ca s e r em an d edfo r r es en t en ci n g. He argue s th a t hi s Sixth Am e ndme nt ri g ht to ef fe c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l wa s v iol a te d b e c a us e he wa s p re

jud ic e d b y

his tr ia l a tto rn e y ’s de fi c ie nt p e rf orman ce. I n p art ic ula

r, he argue s th a t hi s attorney unrea sonably

failed to c ross-examine Gil l reg arding the inconsistency betwee n Gill’s trial testimony and PSR st atements; fa iled to note Gill’s inc onsistent PSR stateme nts at se ntencing ; and failed to “ obtain other ke y prior interviews” of Gill, including production of the FB I ’s 302 repor t on Gill. Evans claims that he was prejudice d by these a lleg ed def

iciencie s in his attorney ’s per formanc e beca use there is a rea sonable proba bility that he w o u l d h ave rec eived a lower se ntence if his trial attorney had prope rly

draw n Gill’s testimony

into doubt. Wit hout the 42.5 g rams of c rac k coca ine attributed to him on the bas i s o f Gi ll’s testimony , the total amount of cr ack attributable to Evans would have be en below 50 g rams and w ould have r esulted in a base offe nse level of 26 versus the base of fense level of 32 that he ac tually rec eived. Eva

ns also argues t h at h i s case should be
rema nded for discovery

and an e videntiary

hear i n g b ec au s e, if the district c ourt had a llowed discovery in his § 2255 proc eeding , Evans could have deter mined whether his tria l attorney had eve r
so ug ht t o o bta in— and

ob ta ine d— a ll o f G ill ’s pr ior state me nts re la tin g to h is tri a l te sti mony , a nd in particula r the FB I ’s 302 repor

t on Gill, whic h statements Evans claims might have cont ained impeachme nt material.No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 11 - I
Evans’s r ig h t t o e f

f ective r epre sentation was not violated by his attorney ’s cr oss-examination
or se nte nc ing -h e ari ngpe rf

or manc e . T he fa c t th a t E va ns ’s a tto rn e y

did no t c ro ss- ex ami ne Gi ll reg ardinghis arg uably

inconsistent PS R s t at em ents does not re nder the attorney ’s per formanc e defic ient, nor does the f act that t h e at t o rney

did not note Gill’s inconsistency during Evans’s sentenc ing he aring . Moreove r, eve n if Evans’s attorney perf ormed de ficiently

in this reg ard, Eva

ns
wa s n ot p re

jud ic e d. Hi s in e ff

e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e c la im o n th e se g ro un ds the re fo re fa ils
. Given the tria l context, t he dec ision not t o focus on the a ppare nt inconsistency

betwee n Gill’s trial testimony

and PSR st atements wa s objectively rea sonable. See Strick

land v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (holding that the standard of attorney perf ormanc e is that of “r easona bly eff ective
ass is ta n c e ” me a s u r e d

a g a in s t “ ano b

je c ti v e s ta

n d ar d o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s ” an d

“ u n d e r p r e v ailing pr of e ssi on a l no rm s” ). B e c a us e oth e r t e sti mony

re c on c ile d G ill ’s a lle g e dly inc on sis te nt P SR statements and indicated that Evans ha d purcha sed cr ack f rom Gill, a

n attempt by

Evans’s attorney to disc redit Gill’s tr ial testimony using Gill’s PSR state ments may well have been a l o s i n g b attle. Fo r example, the district court noted at sentencingthe trial testimony of Andre By

rd, who ha d
corr oborate d Gill’s trial testimony that Evans had pur chase d cra ck fr om Gill: “I did rev i ew the testimony of Mr. B y rd, Andre By

rd, and it ag ain is corr oboration of the le ng th of time that Mr. Evans was purc hasing from Mr. Gill, and it confirms that he was continuing to purcha se in the summer of 1997. Appar ently

that’s when he beca

me dissatisfied with the bus iness relationship wit h Mr. Gill.” Ev ans ’s ow n a dmi ssi on

a t se nte ncing th a t he ha d p ur c ha se d f ro m G ill on

tw o o c c a sio ns a lsoNo. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

As the Gove rnment noted, a lthough Evans’s attorney was the first to cross-e x amine Gill at 2 tr ia l, i t is no t un c omm on fo r d e fense atto rn e y s to div ide iss ue s to c ov e r o n c ro ss- e xami natio n in criminal trials involving multiple defe ndants. The de fense attorney s may have done so here
. - 12 - c or ro bo rate d th a t he ha d in de e d p ur c ha se d c ra c k f ro m G ill . M or e ov e r, Gi ll h a d e xten siv e ly explained the appar ent inconsistency betwee n his PSR state ments and his tria l te s t i m o n y d uring
c ro ss- e xami natio n b y

oth e r de fe ns e a tto rn e y s. As a re su lt, the imp e a c hme nt va lue wi th r e sp e c t to 2 Ev ans of Gi ll’s P S R st ate me nts wa s tr ivi a l and , f or wh a te ve r i mpe a c hme nt v a lue the state me nts reta ined, the district judg e wa s well awa re of the statements and how they conflicte d with Gill’s trial te sti mony . G ive n th is c on te xt, it wo uld be re a so nab le fo r E va

ns ’s a tto rn e y

to c ho os e no t to emphasize the appa

rent inconsistenc ies betwe en Gill’s PSRstatements and tria l testimony
. I ndeed, it appe ars f

ro m the rec ord that this was likely a deliber ate strateg y

decision by Evans’s attorney
. During his c ross-examination of Gill, Eva ns’s attorney questioned Gill reg arding ho w h e ha d b e c ome inv olv e d w iththe ind ivi du a ls w ithwh om h e so ld d ru g s: [EVANS’S ATTORNEY]: Do y ou rec all maki ng the statement that y ou did not rec ruit people to sell drug s , b u t t h ey wer e people that y ou had g rown up a nd knew from Ga ry , Indiana? [GI L L ]: Cor

re c t. Q: Th a t’ s a

tr ue state me nt, isn ’t

it? A: Ye s, it i s. Q: You did not rec ruit any body into a conspirac y , did y ou? A: Cor re c t.No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 13 - J A 297. As the Gove rnment sug g ested in its appellate br ief, this pattern of questioning indicates an intention to dis mantle the Gove rnment’s c on s pirac y theory . Given other

evidenc e indicatingthat Evans wa s involved in purchasingcra ck, and from Gill in par ticular, a nd the fa ct that the conspira cy char g e potentially

posed the most sever e sentence for Evans, targ eting the conspiracy char g e rather than Gill’s cre dibilit y reg arding whether or not Evans had ever purcha sed cr ack f

rom him would be
a re asonable strateg ic choice
. The attorney ’s per formanc e during Eva ns’s sentenc ing he aringalso indicates that he had made a s t rateg ic dec ision not t o discredit Gill using his PSR st atements. Rather than attempting wholly to discredit Gill, E v an s ’s at torney soug ht to persuade the cour t to adopt an alter

native interpre tation of Gill’s testimony that would lead to the conc lusion that Evans had only purcha sed 21 g ra ms o f c ra c k f

ro m G ill , r a the r t

ha n th e 38 0 to 40 0 g ra

ms that th e dis tr ict c ourt ult imate ly extrapolated. Evans’ s attorney attempted to bolster this interpre tati o n o f Gi l l’s testimony by qu e sti on ingEv ans a

bo ut s pe c if

ic date s and

qu anti tie s o f c ra c k r e la tin g to hi s deal ing s w ithGi ll. Duri ngthi s q

ue sti on ing , E va

ns a dmi tte d th a t he ha d, in f a c t, p ur c ha se d c ra c k c oc a ine fr om G ill , there by destroying the impeachme nt value of G ill’s PS R statement derive d from the f act that Evans was not on the l ist of names that Gill had provided to his probation offic er. In sum, Evans’s attorne y had a pla n and that plan wa s objectively rea sonable unde r the c ircumstance s.
Even if his attorney ’s perf ormanc e wer e defic ient in this reg ard, Evans was not prejudice d. To pr e va il o n a

n in e ff e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e c la im, a

de fe nd ant m

us t sh ow th at “ the re is a

re a so na ble probability

that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the resul t o f the proc eedingwould have be enNo. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

Be cause this claim fails on the m erits, i t is unnece ssary to decide whether it is t ime-bar red. 3 - 14 - differ ent.” See Strick

land , 466 U.S. at 694. As explained above, the district judge was we ll awar e fr om c ro ss- e xami natio n by the oth e r de fe ns e a tto rn e y s of the te ns ion be tw e e n G ill ’s PSR st a te me nts
and tr ia l te sti mony , a

nd Gi ll’ s e xplanatio ns on

c ro ss- e x ami nat io n ar g ua bly ro bb e d h is PS R statements of much of

their impeac hment value. The re is simply not a re asonable probability that Evans’s se ntence would have be en diffe rent if his attorne y had echoed Gill’s inconsistencies to the district c ourt. Ross v. United States , 339 F.3d 483, 495 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (“When the [fac tfinder] hear s
on dir e c t e xami natio n th e e vid e nc e a pe tit ion e r f

e e ls c ouns e l sh ou ld h ave dev e lop e d in c ro ssexamination, the petitioner did not suffer pr ejudice.” ).
II
Evans’s r ight to eff

ective repre sentation also was not violated by his attorney ’s handling of reque sts for discover

y and witness stateme nts from the Gover nment. As an ini tial matter, Evans’ s

3

a tto rn e y ma de an e xten siv e re qu e st f or pr e -t ri a l di scover y , and

no re a so n a

pp e ars in t

he re c or d to do ub tt h a tt h e G o v e r

n m e n tp r o p e r l y

c o mp l i e d
. I ta l s o a

p p e ar s f r o m t h e r e c o r d

t h a tt h e d e f

e n se attorney s were in fac t supplied with Bradyand Gi gli o ma te ri a l, as we ll as oth e r wit ne ss s ta te me nts
. Al tho ug h E va

ns argue s tha t he wa s ent itl e d, purs ua nt to 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 00 (Je nc ks Ac t) , to revie w all of Gill’s statements made t o the Gover nment relating to Gill’s trial testimony and that there is “ no rec ord that [hi s] trial counsel ever soug ht production of” the se statements, notably the F B I ’s 30 2 r e po rt

fo r G ill , th e re is n o in dic a tio n in the re c or d th a t any un dis c los e d § 35 00 state me ntsNo. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

We assume for pur

poses of this appea l that Evans’s a t t o rn ey d i d not reque st J encks A ct 4 m a t e r i a l
. W e n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t i n i t s r e s p o n s e t o a p r e - t r i a l d i s c o v e r y r e qu e s tb y E v an s ’ s a t t o r n e y, the Gover nment stated t hat whil e “Defe ndants are not entitled, prior to trial, to oral state ments of code fe nd ants or

c o- c on sp ir a tor s . . . [a]n y

su c h s ta te me nts or

summa ri e s e xistin g in s uf

fi c ie nt v e rb a tim f o r m to qu a li f

y f o r in c lu s io n u n d e r 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 5 0 0 [th e Je n c k s A c t] will be pr ov ide d p rio r to c ro ss e x am ina tio n o

f sa id w itn ess .” (Empha sis added). It is therefor e possible that t he Gove rnment pr ov ide d d e fe ns e c ouns e l any e xistin g Jen c k s A c t

m a t e r i a l a ut o m a t i c a l l y , w i tho ut w a iti ngfo r d e fe ns e re qu e sts
. - 15 - ex is ted , an d Ev ans has no t po in ted th is cou rt to any su ch in di cat io n. Th is cou rt has hel d t hat “an FBI report o f a witness’ statement is producible if the notes from the inter view we re r ead ba ck to and verifie d by

the witness and if the repor t summarized the notes without material var iation.” United States v. Nathan , 8 1 6 F. 2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 6 -3 7 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Chitwood , 457 F.2d 676, 678 (6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 409 U.S. 858 (1972)). As explained above, although G ill testi fied that th e Go ve rnme nt a g e nts wh o in te rv ie we d h im h a d ta ke n no te s d

ur ingthe ir

int e rv ie ws , h e a lso testified that he did not revie w any of those notes or r eports pre pare d by the Gover

nment reg arding his statements and that his state ments had not bee n rec orded. B ased on this testimony , there was no
rea son to believe that withheld Jencks Act mate rial existed, an d i t wa s there fore rea sonable for Ev ans ’s a tto rn e y

no t to re qu e st this a

pp are ntl y no ne xiste nt m a te ri a l. 4
To the extent Evans ar g ues that his attorney should have re quested the c ourt to perf orm
ana ly se s o f G ov e rnme nt do c ume nts fo r Jenc ks Ac t ma te ri a l, a de fe nd ant mus t f ir st e sta bli shso me basis for believing that the document exis ts and that it may contain such material. See, e .g. , United Sta te s v . R os e bo ro , 87 F .3 d 64 2, 64 5- 46 (4 th C ir . 1 99 6) (e xpla ini ngthat, t o invo ke the c ourt ’s du ty to e xami ne the Go ve rnme nt’ s d oc ume nts fo r Je nc ks Ac t mate ri a l, a de fe nd ant m

us t “ pr ov ide so meNo. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

To the ex tent that Evans desires the s upposed documents to prove his spec ulation that the 5 Gover nment may

have illeg ally

withheld materia l, this i s not one of his claims.

- 16 - indication that the witness g ave a pretria l statement to a g overnme nt ag ent g ener ally related to the witness’ direc t testimony . The de fenda nt’s showing need not be g reat, but it must be more than a
mere automatic demand for g overnme nt w itness’ statements”)
. Her e, Evans appe ars mer ely to be speculating ab o u t t h e ex istence of § 3500 statements by

Gill and their potential conte nt. I n the absenc e of a

ny basis for be lieving that such statement s ex i s t ed, were imprope rly withheld, or had
r e le v an t c o n te n t, it

w a s r e a s o n a

b le f o r h is a tt o r n e y n o t t o r e qu e s t t

h e c o u rt’ s in s p e c ti o no f

the Gover nment’s documents, and there is no reason to think that Evans wa s prejudice d by his attorney ’s actions in this reg ard.
III
W e al s o d ec l i n e to re m an d E v an s ’s ca s e fo r di s co v ery o r an ev i d en t i ar y h ea ri n g. Al t h o u gh a § 2255 petitioner’s burden is r elatively low in seeking an evide ntiary hear ing, the court ne ed not conduct one if “the motion and the f iles and rec ords of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Be cause it was not deficie nt for Eva ns’s attorney

not to se ek production of Gill’s statements, FB I 302 repor t or otherwise, there is no need t o conduct discovery into the documents’ existence or c ontent for the pur pose of his ineff

ectiv e-a ssistance claims. See Strick

land , 466 U.S. a

t 687 (re quiring both deficie nt attorney perf ormanc e and r esulting prejudice to the defe ndant to succe ed on a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel). 5No. 05-3671

Evans v. U

nited States

- 17 - I nsofar as Evans se eks discover

y to de termine whether his tria l attorney g ave him incor

rec t
a dv ic e re g ard ingwh a t se nte nc e he wo uld re c e ive thr ou g h a

ple a a g re e me nt v e rs us tr ia l, t

his c la im is tim e-ba rre d. Evans ra ised the cla im f or the first time in his supplemental pe tition, which petition he filed more than one y ear afte r his c onviction be came final, and the c laim differ s signific antly from tho se he ra ise d in

his or iginal tim e ly

pe tit ion and the re fo re do e s n ot “ re la te ba c k” to h is t ime ly petition. Se e Ma

y lev . F e lix , 545 U.S. 644, 650 (2005) (“ An amende d habea s petition
. . . does not relate bac k (and the reby

esca pe AED PA’s one-y ear

time limi t) when it ass er t s a new g round for relief supported by fac ts that dif fer in both time a

nd ty pe fr om those the orig inal pleadingset forth.” ).
Conclusion
For the fore g oing rea sons, w e aff irm the district c ourt’s denial of Evans’s petition to vacate, set aside, or

corr ect his sentenc e, and w e deny Evans’s r equest for

a re mand.