[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14710

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-20468-JEM,

1:12-cr-20757-JEM-3

CHRISTIAN COLOMA, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee,

ATTORNEY RONALD GAINOR, et al.,

 Intervenors.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 23, 2020)

Case: 18-14710 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Christian Coloma is a federal prisoner serving a 144-month sentence for one 

count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive kickbacks 

in connection with a federal healthcare benefit program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 371, and five counts of payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal 

healthcare benefit program, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A). He

appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. 

Coloma argues that the government violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights 

when it obtained duplicate copies of his attorney work product from a government 

contracted copying service. For the following reasons, we affirm.

In reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion to vacate, we review 

de novo the court’s legal conclusions and review for clear error the court’s factual 

findings. Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir. 2014) (en 

banc).

The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right against the deprivation of “life, 

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. To 

constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process clause, the alleged 

violation “must be so outrageous that it is fundamentally unfair and shocking to the 

universal sense of justice.” United States v. Ofshe, 817 F.2d 1508, 1516 (11th Cir. 

Case: 18-14710 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

1987) (internal quotation mark omitted). “[T]he totality of the circumstances must 

be considered with no single factor controlling” when determining whether such 

conduct exists, and “[t]he defense is to be invoked only in the rarest and most 

outrageous of circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the 

behavior constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process clause, 

reversal is only warranted if the defendant demonstrates that the violation resulted

in prejudice (or, if applicable, the substantial threat of prejudice). See United 

States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365–66 (1981).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees anyone accused of a crime the right to 

assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI. An alleged Sixth Amendment 

violation must have had (or threatened) “some adverse effect upon the 

effectiveness of counsel’s representation or . . . produced some other prejudice to 

the defense” to warrant “imposing a remedy.” Morrison, 449 U.S. at 365. 

Here, assuming without deciding that counsel’s selection and/or compilation 

of documents during discovery from government-produced documents constituted 

privileged attorney work product under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

16(b)(2),1 Coloma still has not established a violation of his Fifth Amendment 

right to due process or Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. This is

1 It does not appear that we or the Supreme Court have addressed this specific issue, but we need 

not reach it to decide this appeal.

Case: 18-14710 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

because he has failed to show that the government’s alleged receipt of his 

counsel’s work product was outrageous or prejudicial to him. In the face of 

substantial inculpatory evidence presented at trial by 23 witnesses, at best, he

offers nothing but speculation and conclusory assertions to suggest how the 

government’s possession of this information harmed him. For the alleged Fifth 

Amendment violation specifically, he circularly argues that “the Government 

prejudiced [him] and rendered his defense counsel ineffective by obtaining 

duplicate copies of the defense team’s work product.” Accordingly, the district 

court did not err when it denied Coloma’s § 2255 motion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-14710 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 Page: 4 of 4