FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12285 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 1 0 5 - CR- T- 2 4 M SS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D O N N E L L H E S T E R , W A L L A C E R E E D , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 18, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D o n n e ll H e s te ra n d W a lla c e R e e d ap p e a l th e irc o n v ic tio n s f o rc o n s p ir in g to di stri bu t e 500 gram s or m ore of c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) ( I I ) a nd 846; a nd pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 500 gr a m s or m ore of c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), (b)( 1)(B )( i i )( II ). H es t er al so appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on for posse ss i ng a f i re arm i n furthera nce of a drug cri m e, i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c). H est er an d R eed h av e ad o p t ed each o th ers’ a r g u m e n ts o n ap p e a l. T h e y a r g u e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t: ( 1 ) e rr e d in d e n y in g th e ir m ot i ons t o s tr i ke the j ury ve ni r e ; ( 2) e rr e d i n de ny i ng the i rm ot i ons f orj udgm e ntof a c q u itta l a n d H e s te r ’s m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l; ( 3 ) v io la te d th e ird u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b y in te r f e r in g w ith R e e d ’s d e f

e n s e w itn e s s ; a n d ( 4 ) e rr e d b y f a ilin g , s u a s

p o n te , to d ecl are a m i stri al b ased o n th e G o v ern m en t“ v o u ch i n g ” fo r i t s w i tn ess. R eed al so a r g u e s h i s tr i a l c o u n s e l p r o v i d e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e . W e a f f i rm. I . DI S CUS S I ON A. Mo t i o n s to stri ke j u ry ven i re R ee d fi rs tar gu es the un derr epre se nt at i on of A fr i ca n-A m er i ca ns i n the j ury v en i re p rev en t ed a fai r cro ss-sect i o n o f th e co m m u n i ty fro m si tt i n g o n th e j u ry. H e s te rh a s a d o p te d R e e d ’s a r g u m e n t. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to th e ju ry s e le c tio n p r o c e s s . U ni te d State s v . G r is ham , 6 3 F. 3 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 7 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) . Th e Su p r e me3

C our tha s he l d w hi l e “ pe t i tj ur i e s m us tbe dr a w n f r om as our c e f

a i r l y r e pr e s e nt a t i ve o f th e co m m u n i ty, ” th ere i s “ n o req u i rem en tth atp et i tj u ri es actu al l y ch o sen m u st m irr o rth e c o m m u n ity a n d r e f le c t th e v a r io u s d is tin c tiv e g r o u p s in th e p o p u la tio n . D ef endant s a re no tent i t l ed t o a j ury of a ny part i cul arcom po si t i on . ” H ol lan d v. I llin o is , 110 S . C t . 803, 808 ( 1990) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . A de f e nda ntc l a i m i ng a vi ol a t i on of

the f a i r - c r os s - s e c t i on r e qui r e m e ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng the unde rr e pr e s e nt e d gr oup: ( 1) i s di s t i nc t i ve ; ( 2) i s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e xc l ude d f r om the ju ry s o u r c e ; a n d ( 3 ) its u n d e rr e p r e s e n ta tio n is u n f a ira n d u n r e a s o n ab le . B erry hi l l v. Zant , 8 5 8 F .2 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . H es t erand R ee d fai l ed t o p rove a vi ol at i on of the S i xth A m endm entfa i rc r os s - s e c t i on j ury - s e l e c t i on r e qui r e m e nt . A l though the y i de nt i f i e d adi s t i nc t i ve grou p i n the com m un i ty, A fr i ca n-A m er i ca ns, they f ai l ed t o p re se ntevi dence that A f r ic a n - A m e r ic a n s a r e s y s te m a tic a lly u n d e rr e p r e s e n te d in th e ju ry p o o l. M or e ove r , H e s t e ra nd R e e d a c know l e dge d i n the di s tr i c tc our ttha tthe y c oul d not sh o w b ad w il l i n th e p ro ce ss as a w h o le, an d in th eir b rief s th at th e d istrict co u rt’s ju ry - s e le c tio n p r o c e s s is “w id e ly a c c e p te d a s f a ir , r e a s o n ab le a n d [ c ]o n s titu tio n a l.” B . Mot i ons f

orj udgm e nt

of ac qui t tal and f

ora ne w tr i al H e s te ra r g u e s th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im w a s in s u f f ic ie n t a s to a ll th r e e c o u n ts a nd f ur the ra r gue s the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orBe causeHester limit s his moti on for a

new trial arguments to the same arguments he 1 presented to support his moti on for judgment of ac quittal, he has aba ndoned all arguments raised below in his motion for a newtrial. See Un ited S tates v. F or d, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (“ [O] ur we ll established rule is that issues and c ontentions not ti mely raised in the briefs aredeeme d abandone d.”). 4 a new tri al . H es t er ’ s a rgum ent s a s t o w hy the deni al of hi s m ot i on for anew tri al shou l d b e gra nt ed ar e i dent i ca l t o tho se re gardi ng the deni al of hi s m ot i on for a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. 1 A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , a l though R e e d ha s a dopt e d H e s t e r ’ s a r gum e nt s , w e ha ve expl ai ned the fa ct -s peci fi c nature of a n i nsuffi ci encyof evi dence cl ai m re qu i re s in d e p e n d e n t b r ie f

in g if w e a r e to r e a c h th e m e r its o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c la im . U

ni ted S ta tes v. Kh o u ry , 9 0 1 F .2 d 9 4 8 , 9 6 3 n .1 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). A d ef en d an t’ s c h a lle n g e to th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e s h o u ld n o t b e a d d r e s s e d o n ap p e a l in th e a b se n ce o f b rief

in g , ev en th o u g h th e d ef en d an t h as ad o p ted a c o -d ef en d an t’ s a r g u m e n ts . Id . W e th u s d o n o t a d d r e s s R e e d ’s m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l de n o v o , v ie w in g th e f

a c ts a n d d r a w in g a ll in f e r e n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e G o v e rn m e n t. U

ni te d State s v . D e s c e nt , 2 9 2 F .3 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) .

“ [ W ] e ne e d onl y de t e rm i ne tha tar e a s onabl e f a c t - f i nde rc oul d c onc l ude tha tthe evi dence es t abl i shed the defendant ’ s gui l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). “ W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on f

orane w tr i a l f

orabus e of5

di sc re t i on . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. H

erna nd ez , 43 3 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 32 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1635 ( 2006) . “ O n am ot i on f orane w tr i a l ba s e d on the w ei g h to f th e ev i d en ce, th e co u rtn eed n o tv i ew th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the ve r di c t . I tm a y w e i gh the e vi de nc e a nd c ons i de rthe c r e di bi l i ty of the w i tness es . ” I

d. a t 1 3 3 5 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . “I f th e c o u r t c o n c lu d e s th a t, despi t e the abstra ctsuff i ci encyof the evi dence t o sust ai n the verdi ct , the evi dence pr e ponde r a t e s s uf

f i c i e nt l y he a vi l y a ga i ns tthe ve r di c ttha tas e r i ous m i s c a rr i a ge of j us t i c e m a y ha ve oc c urr e d, i tm a y s e ta s i de the ve r di c t , gr a ntane w tr i a l , a nd subm i tthe i ss ues f

or det erm i nat i on by another j ury. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). 1. C o n s

p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te “T o s u s ta in ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s c o c a in e w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e, the go vernm entm ustprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat(1) a n i l l egal a g r e e m e n t e x is te d ; ( 2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t k n e w o f

it; a n d ( 3 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t, w ith kn ow l edge, vo l un t ar i l y j oi ned i t . ” H erna ndez , 433 F . 3d a t1333 ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ P a r t i c i pa t i on i n ac ons pi r a c y c a n be i nf e rr e d f r om ade ve l opm e nta nd col l ocat i on of ci rc um st ance s. ” I d. “ A l tho ug h m er e pre se nce a tthe sc ene of a cri m e i s i n su ffi ci en tt o su p p o rta co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n , p resen ce n o n eth el ess i s a pr oba t i ve f

a c t orw hi c h the j ury m a y c ons i de ri n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rade f e nda nt w as a kno w i ng and i nt ent i on al part i ci panti n a cr i m i nal sc hem e. ” I d. ( quot a t i on6

o m itte d ) . W e h a v e a ls o n o te d “e v id e n c e o f r e s is ta n c e to a rr e s t a n d f lig h t is adm i ss i bl e t o d em on stra t e c on sc i ou snes s of gui l tand there by gu i l t . ” V entura v. A t tor ne y G e n. , Fla. , 4 1 9 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l s how e d: ( 1) pr i ort o the a rr e s tof D i xon, R e e d, a nd H e s t e r , C ol l i ns ha d pur c ha s e d drugs f r om thr e e i ndi vi dua l s on num e r ous occa si on s; (2) on January 5, 20 03 , D i xo n, R ee d, and H es t erw er e i n a vehi cl e that w as st op ped b y pol i ce for s peedi ng and con t ai ned $ 25 , 00 0; (3) on the day before the arre st , C ol l i ns bo ug hta hal f- ki l o o f c ocai ne fr om D i xo n, R ee d, and H es t er ; ( 4) on the da y of

the a rr e s t , J a nua ry 30, 2003, H e s t e ra nd R e e d w a i t e d i n the ve hi c l e w hi l e D i xon br oughtthe c oc a i ne t o C ol l i ns ; a nd ( 5) the a m ountof c oc a i ne re covered, 99 5 g ra m s, w as consi st entw i th d i stri bu t i on , no tpers on al use. W hen the a rr e s toc c urr e d, H e s t e ra l s o f l e d a nd a tt e m pt e d t o di s pos e of hi s gun. V i e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, ar e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld f i nd H e s t e rgui l ty of

c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng H e s t e r ’ s m ot i on f or ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o rh is m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l a s to th e c o n s p ir a c y c o u n t. 2. P o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te

“ T o s us t a i n ac onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e w i th i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e , the gove rnm e ntm us ts how tha tade f e nda ntknow i ngl y pos s e s s e d the7

control l ed subst ance w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e i t . ” H erna nd ez , 433 F . 3d a t1333 ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T he gove rnm e ntm a y pr ove pos s e s s i on by s how i ng a c tua l or construct i ve po ss es si on . ” I d. “ C ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on e xi s t s w he n ade f e nda nt ha s ow ne r s hi p, dom i ni on, orc ontr ol ove ra n obj e c ti t s e l f ordom i ni on orc ontr ol ov erthe prem i se s or the vehi cl e i n w hi ch the obj ec ti s c on ce al ed. ” I d. “I n te n t to di stri bu t e m aybe i nferre d from the am ou ntof [the drug ] i nv ol ved. ” I d. T he G ov ernm entpres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe concl usi on that H e s t e rc ons truc t i ve l y pos s e s s e d the c oc a i ne w i th a n i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e i t . C ol l i ns pos i t i ve l y i de nt i f

i e d H e s t e ra s the thi r d i ndi vi dua l i n the M i a m i B oy s , w ho, a l ong w ith D ix o n a n d R e e d , s o ld h im ah a lf - k ilo o f c o c a in e o n th e d a y b e f

o r e th e a rr e s t. O n th e d a y o f

th e a rr e s t, b o th R e e d a n d H e s te rw e r e in th e v e h ic le w ith th e c o c a in e . A l so, the am ou ntof cocai ne, 99 5 g ra m s, w as suff i ci entt o sup po rta f

i nd i ng of an i nt entt o d i stri bu t e the drug s. A cc ordi ng l y, a r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d fi nd H es t er g u ilty o f th e p o s s e s s io n c o u n t, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o rh is m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l. 3. P o s s e s s i n ga f

i r e a rm i n f

u r th e r a n c e o

f a dr u gc r i me T o s us t a i n ac onvi c t i on unde r§ 924( c ) , the gove rnm e ntm us ts how , dur i ng and i n rel at i on t o the conspi ra cyt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne, H es t er u s e d , c a rr ie d , o rp o s s e s s e d af ir e a rm in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th a t c o n s p ir a c y . U

ni ted8

State s v . G unn , 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ) .

“ T he gove rnm e ntm us ta l s o e s t abl i s h s om e ne xus be tw e e n the f i r e a rm a nd the drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse t o sho w po ss es si on w as i n furthera nce of the cr i m e. ” I d. H es t eradm i tt ed the gu n fou nd atthe sc ene of the cr i m e w as hi s, and sever al offi ce rs t es t i fi ed thatthey s aw H es t erca rryi ng the gu n and then t oss i tw hen h e f l ed f r om the s c e ne . V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the G o v e rn m e n t, ar e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld f in d H e s te rg u ilty o f

c a rry in g af

ir e a rm in f u r th e r a n c e o f

ad ru g tr a n s a c tio n b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o rm o tio n f

o ran e w tr ia l. C. In terf

eren ce w i th a def

en se w i tn ess R e e d a r gue s the di s tr i c tc our ts i ngl e d outD i xon t o a dm oni s h hi m about p o ssi b l e p erj u ry an d o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce ch arg es w h en n o o th er w i tn ess w as so a d m o n is h e d . R e e d c o n te n d s th is r e s u lte d in ju d ic ia l in te r f e r e n c e w ith h is s o le w i tne s s by ha vi ng ac hi l l i ng e f f e c ton tha tw i tne s s ’ s t e s t i m onya nd vi ol a t i ng R e e d ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . H e s te rh a s a d o p te d R e e d ’s a r g u m e n t. W e r e v ie w q u e s tio n s o f c o n s titu tio n a l la w d e n o v o . U ni ted Stat es v. N

oel , 23 1 F . 3d 83 3, 83 6 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). “ [A ] cr i m i nal defe nd anthas aconst i tut i on al ri gh tt o p re se nthi s ow n w i tness es t o est abl i sh a def ense . ” U ni tes Stat es v. T e r z ado-M adr uga , 8 9 7 F .2 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) .9

“S u b s ta n tia l in te r f

e r e n c e w ith ad e f

e n s e w itn e s s ’ f

r e e a n d u n h a m p e r e d c h o ic e to t es t i fyvi ol at es du e proces s r i gh t s of the defendant . ” D e m ps v . W ai nw r i ght , 805 F .2 d 1 4 2 6 , 1 4 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 8 6 ) . “W h e n s u c h av io la tio n o f d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts oc c ur s , ac our tm us tr e ve r s e the c onvi c t i on w i thoutr e ga r d t o pr e j udi c e t o the defe nd ant . ” I

d. F o r e x am p le, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h as re v er se d a d ef en d an t’ s c o n v ic tio n w h e r e th e “th e ju d g e ’s th r e a te n in g r e m a rk s , d ir e c te d o n ly a t th e s in g le w i tness for the defense , ef fe ct i vel y drove thatw i tness off the st and. ” W ebb v. T ex as , 93 S . C t . 35 1, 35 3 (19 72 ). T h e c o u r t d id n o t s u b s ta n tia lly in te r f e r e w ith R e e d ’s r ig h t to p r e s e n t h is w itn e s s . T h e c o u r t d id n o t s in g le o u t D ix o n f o rp e r ju ry w a rn in g s ; in f

a c t, it s pe c i f i c a l l y a dvi s e d H e s t e ra nd R e e d a s t o the da nge r s of pr ovi di ng untrue t es t i m on y. T he courtexpl ai ned i tw as advi si ng D i xo n o f pot ent i al perj ury i ss ues be c a us e he , unl i ke R e e d a nd H e s t e r , ha d e nt e r e d i nt o apl e aa gr e e m e nta nd thus r i s ke d c ontr a di c t i ng hi s pl e ac ol l oquy w i th hi s tr i a l t e s t i m ony . N e i the rthe G o v ern m en tn o r th e co u rtm ad e an y th reat en i n g rem ark s t o D i x o n . M o st im p o r ta n tly , D ix o n w a s n o t h in d e r e d b y th e c o u r t’s w a rn in g s b e c a u s e h e te s tif ie d . D. G o vern m en t

“ vo u ch i n g ” f

o r i t s w i tn ess R e e d a r gue s the G ove rnm e ntc om m i tt e d pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc tby v o u c h in g f

o rC o llin s . R e e d a s s e r ts th e G o v e rn m e n t in a c c u r a te ly c o n te n d e d in10

c l os i ng a r gum e nt s tha tC ol l i ns ha d no r e a s on t o l i e s i nc e the r e w a s nothi ng the G o v e rn m e n t c o u ld d o f

o rh im . B e c a us e thi s i s s ue w a s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , w e r e vi e w i tf or p la in e rr o r . U

n ite d S ta te s v . R a h im , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 5 3 , 7 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , cert deni ed , 126 S . C t . 1820 ( 2006) . “ T o e s t abl i s h pl a i n e rr or , ade f e nda ntm us ts how there i s ( 1) error, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” U ni ted S ta te s v . Mo r ia r ty , 429 F . 3d 1012, 1019 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ I f a l l thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e m e t, w e m a y e x e r c is e o u rd is c r e tio n to r e c o g n iz e af o r f e ite d e rr o r , b u t o n ly if the error s er i ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty or pub l i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I

d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). W e r ever se a def

endant ’ s c on vi ct i on on the basi s of prose cut ori al m i s c onduc tonl y w he r e the r e m a rks “ ( 1) w e r e i m pr ope ra nd ( 2) pr e j udi c e d the defe nd ant ’ s s ub st ant i ve ri gh t s. ” U ni te d State s v . D e l

gado , 56 F . 3d 1357, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . “ W he n r e vi e w i ng ade f e nda nt ’ s ‘ vouc hi ng’ c l a i m , w e e xa m i ne w he the r( 1) the pr os e c ut orpl a c e d the pr e s t i ge of the gove rnm e ntbe hi nd the w i tne s s by m a ki ng e xpl i c i tpe r s ona l a s s ur a nc e s of the w i tne s s ’ s c r e di bi l i ty , or (2) the prosecut or i m pl i ci t l y vou ched for the w i tness ’ s c re di bi l i ty by i m pl yi ng that evi dence notform al l y pre se nt ed t o the j ury s up po rt s the w i tness ’ s t es t i m on y. ” U ni te d State s v . A r i as - I

z qui e r do , 449 F . 3d 1168, 1177- 78 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . “ T he11

p ro h i b i t i o n ag ai n stv o u ch i n g d o es n o tfo rb i d p ro secu t o rs fro m arg u i n g cred i b i l i ty, w hi c h m a y be c e ntr a l t o the c a s e ; r a the r , i tf orbi ds a r gui ng c r e di bi l i ty ba s e d on the re pu t at i on of the go vernm entoffi ce or on evi dence notbefore the j ury. ” U ni ted Stat es v. H

erna nd ez , 9 2 1 F .2 d 1 5 6 9 , 1 5 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p la in ly e rrb y f a ilin g , s u a s

p o n te , t o d ec l ar e a m is tr ia l b a s e d o n th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a lle g e d ly v o u c h in g f o rC o llin s d u r in g its c l os i ng a r gum e nt . T he G ove rnm e ntdi d nota r gue C ol l i ns ’ s c r e di bi l i ty ba s e d on the G ove rnm e nt ’ s r e put a t i on, butba s e d on hi s ha vi ng “ nothi ng t o ga i n” by t es t i fy i ng abou thi s pri or drug deal s. M oreover, the G ov ernm ent ’ s a rgum entw as b a s e d o n e v id e n c e b e f

o r e th e ju ry s in c e b o th C o llin s a n d M o s le y h a d te s tif ie d a s to C o llin s ’ a g r e e m e n t w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t, a n d th e c o u r t in f o rm e d th e ju ry to d is r e g a r d th e G o v e rn m e n t’s s ta te m e n t a s to w h e n C o llin s w o u ld c o m p le te h is c u rr e n t p r is o n te rm . E . Inef

f ec t i ve assistan ce of

tri alcoun se l F i na l l y , R e e d a r gue s hi s c ouns e l pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e . A l though H e s t e ra dopt e d a l l of

R e e d’ s a r gum e nt s , he pr e s e nt e d no a r gum e nt s a s t o the in e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

h is c o u n s e l o re x p la in e d h o w R e e d ’s a r g u m e n ts ap p lie d to h is c ouns e l . T hus , w e do notr e vi e w a n i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m on H e s te r ’s b e h a lf

.12

A s f orR e e d’ s c l a i m , w e ge ne r a l l y do notr e vi e w c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l r a i s e d on di r e c tappe a l w he n the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not e n te r ta in th e c la im o rd e v e lo p af a c tu a l r e c o r d . M

assaro v. U

ni ted Stat es , 1 2 3 S. C t. 1 6 9 0 , 1 6 9 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. B ender , 29 0 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). B ec ause the re cord i s notsuff i ci ent l y devel op ed as t o R ee d’ s i neff ec t i vea s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m , w e de c l i ne t o c ons i de ri ton di r e c tappe a l , w i thout p r e ju d ic e to h is ab ility to r a is e it la te rin a2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . AF F I RME D.