FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 25, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 06- 10841 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 02 -006 38 -C V -T -N 99 -000 52 -C R -T -N C L I N T G R I F F I N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 25, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C l i ntG r i f

f i n, af e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , chal l enges the di stri ct c ourt ’ s de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , orc orr e c thi s s e nt e nc e , br ought p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . G r if f in a r g u e s th a t b o th h is tr ia l a n d ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w e r e in e f

f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to ap p r o p r ia te lyc h a lle n g e th e d ru g q u a n tity a ttr ib u te d to h im b yth e s e n te n c in g c o u rt. H e a ls o a s s e rts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, in r e vi e w i ng hi s § 2255 m ot i on, e rr e d i n a ttr i but i ng a n a ddi t i ona l 125 gr a m s of co ca in e b as e to h im w h en d eter m in in g th at h e w as n o t p re ju d iced b y trial co u n se l’ s f a i l ur e t o obj e c t . B e c aus e G r i f f i n c a nnots how unde rthe tw o- pr ong t e s tof Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t2052, 2064, 80 L . E d. 2d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , th a th i s tr i a l a n d ap p e l l a t e c o u n s e l we r e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yi n e f f e c t i v e , we a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of G r i f f i n’ s § 2255 m ot i on. B AC KG R OU ND G r if f in w a s c o n v ic te d in f

e d e r a l c o u rt o f

c o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne ba s e , di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne , a nd di s tr i but i on of c o c a in e b a s e . G r if

f in w a s s e n te n c e d to 1 5 1 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. A ttri al , w i tness C al vi n M as se y t es t i fi ed thathe bo ug ht12 5 g ra m s of w hat he be l i e ve d w a s c oc a i ne ba s e f r om G r i f f i n pr i ort o the c ons pi r a c y . A ts e nt e nc i ng, G ri ff i n’ s tri al coun se l obj ec t ed t o the drug qu ant i ty a ttri bu t ed t o G ri ff i n. H e argued tha t65. 67 gr a m s of

c oc a i ne ba s e s houl d notbe a ttr i but e d be c aus e G r i f f i n’ s c o-3

de f e nda nt s w e r e notc onvi c t e d of the s e c ha r ge s . T he tr i a l c ourtove rrul e d the obj e c t i on ba s e d on the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ( “ G ui de l i ne s ” ) de f i ni t i on of r e l e va nt c onduc t . I nc l udi ng thi s a m ounti n the t ot a l s , the s e nt e nc i ng c ourtf ound 153. 6 g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e a n d 2 1 5 .7 g r a m s o f p o w d e rc o c a in e a ttr ib u tab le to G r if f in . T h is g a v e G r if

f in ab a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

3 4 , w ith ac r im in a l h is to ryc a te g o ryo f 1 . T he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as 15 1 t o 1 88 m on ths i m pri sonm ent . T he court s e n te n c e d G r if

f in to th e m in im u m te rm o f 1 5 1 m o n th s . O n di r e c tappe a l , G r i f

f i n a dopt e d the br i e f

s a nd l e ga l a r gum e nt s of hi s c odefe nd ant s. In addi t i on , he ar gu ed thatm ot i on for am i stri alshou l d h ave been gr a nt e d be c aus e the c ourta dm i tt e d a n i nc r i m i na t i ng e xtr a j udi c i a l s t a t e m e ntm a de byac o- de f

e nda nt , P a tr i c k H ow a r d, i n vi ol a t i on of G r i f f i n’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ghtt o c onf

r ont a t i on. G r i f

f i n a l s o a r gue d tha tapr os e c ut or ’ s c om m e ntdur i ng cl osi ng ar gu m entw as prej ud i ci al t o the po i ntof re vers al . A pp el l at e c ou nsel fa i l ed t o exp re ss l y argue the se nt enci ng court ’ s drug cal cul at i on w as i n err or; ho w ever , bya dopt i ng the c o- de f

e nda nt s ’ br i e f

s , the i s s ue w a s r a i s e d. I n a n u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n , U n i ted S ta tes v. H

o w a rd , N o 9 9-13 25 8 (11 th C i r. J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 ) , w e a f

f i rme d G r i f

f i n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . I n th e s a me op i ni on , w e vac at ed co-defe nd antH ow ar d’ s s ent ence fi nd i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d in d e te rm in in g th e d ru g q u a n titya ttr ib u tab le to H o w a r d ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t.4

W e d id n o t e x p r e s s lye x a m in e w h e th e rth e r e c o r d s u p p o rte d th e d ru g q u a n tity f i ndi ngs a s the ype rt a i ne d t o G r i f f i n. G r i f f i n the n f i l e d a§ 2255 m ot i on a nd a r gue d i n hi s s upport i ng m e m or a ndum of

l a w tha thi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l w a s vi ol a t e d byhi s tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l f a i l ur e t o c ha l l e nge the drug qua nt i ty a ttr i but e d t o hi m f orthe purpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng. I n r e s pons e , the go vernm entar gu ed thatthere w as no perf orm ance defi ci encybecause tri al coun se l di d chal l enge the qu ant i ty. T he go vernm entfurther argued thatthe Str i c kland s ta n d a r d o f

d e f ic ie n c ya n dp r e

ju d ic e h a d n o t b e e n m e t. G r if f in f ile d ar e p lyin w hi ch he no t ed that , al tho ug h tri al coun se l di d o bj ec tt o the drug qu ant i t i es a ttr ib u te d to h im , c o u n s e l o b je c te d o n d if

f e r e n t g r o u n d s th a n th o s e u s e d b yth is c o u rt to v a c a te h is c o - d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e . F u rth e rh e a r g u e d th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to r a is e th e s u c c e s s f u l a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l. A m agi stra t e j ud ge re vi ew ed G ri ff i n’ s § 22 55 m ot i on and m ade an i nde pe nde ntc a l c ul a t i on of the drug qua nt i t i e s a ttr i but abl e t o G r i f f i n. I n doi ng s o, s he f ol l ow e d ouropi ni on i n H ow ard a n d r e d u c e d th e a m o u n t a ttr ib u tab le to G r i f f i n. H ow e ve rthe m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e vi e w of the r e c or d f

ound s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of drug qua nt i t i e s t o s upportaba s e l e ve l of 34. T he m a gi s tr a t e r e c om m e nde d the deni al of the § 2 25 5 m ot i on . A l tho ug h G ri ff i n o bj ec t ed t o the re po rt , the di stri ct5

c o u rt o v e rru le d h is o b

je c tio n s a n d a d o p te d th e r e p o rt. W e grant ed a c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty on the i ss ue of “ w hether the di stri ct c ourte rr e d byf

i ndi ng tha tthe appe l l a nt ’ s tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l w e r e not i neff ec t i ve un der Str i c kland

fo r f aili n g ch allen g e th e s en ten cin g co u rt’s de t e rm i na t i on of

the qua nt i tyof

drugs a ttr i but abl e t o hi m f orthe purpos e of se nt enci ng . ” ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW W e r evi ew “ the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ear e rr or and i t s l egal c o n c lu s io n s a n d m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f la w a n d f

a c t de no vo . ” Mi c hae l

v . Cr os by , 430 F .3 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 12 6 S . C t . 20 25 (200 6). “ W hether a pa rt i c ul a rde c i s i on byc ouns e l w a s at a c t i c a l one i s aque s t i on of f a c t , ” w hi l e the r e a s onabl e ne s s of

apa rt i c ul a rt a c t i c a l de c i s i on i s aque s t i on of l a w r e vi e w e d de no vo . H ol som ba ck v. W hi te, 1 3 3 F .3 d 1 3 8 2 , 1 3 8 6 - 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .

DI S C US S I ON G r i f f i n a r gue s tha thi s tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l w e r e i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o c ha l l e nge the drug qua nt i tya ttr i but e d t o hi m . T o de m ons tr a t e i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , the defendantm ustshow (1) thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as d e f ic ie n t a n d ( 2 ) th a t th e s a m e d e f ic ie n c yr e s u lts in p r e

ju d ic e to th e d e f

e n d a n t. See Str i c kland , 466 U . S . a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064. “ B oth s how i ngs a r e ne c e s s a ryf or6

any r el i ef

; fa i l ure t o est abl i sh ei ther i s f at al and m akes i tun nece ss ary t o con si der the other. ” R uthe r

f ord v . Cr os by , 3 8 5 F. 3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 0 8 - 0 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . To s a t i s f ythe f i r s tpr ong, c ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e m us tf

a l l “ be l ow a n obj e c t i ve st an d ard o f reaso n ab l en ess . ” Cha nd lerv. U ni ted Stat es , 2 1 8 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng D arde n v . W ai nw r i ght , 477 U . S . 168, 106 S . C t . 2464, 2473, 91 L . E d. 2d 144 ( 1986) ) . W e e va l ua t e the r e a s onabl e ne s s f r om c ouns e l ’ s pe r s pe c t i ve a t th e tim e o f

th e a lle g e d e rr o rin lig h t o f a ll c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e c a s e . See Str i c kland, 466 U . S . a t690, 104 S . C t . a t2066. T o e s t abl i s h pr e j udi c e , the de f e nda ntm us ts how tha tbutf orhi s c ouns e l ’ s de f

i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e the r e s ul tof th e p r o c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. I d. a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2068. G r if f in h a s n o t s h o w n h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t. G r i f f i n a r gue s tha tc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o c ha l l e nge the drug qua nt i t i e s a ttr i but e d t o G r i f f i n. A l though appe l l a t e c ouns e l di d note xpr e s s l ya r gue th is is s u e , h e d id a d o p t th e a r g u m e n ts o f th e c o - d e f

e n d a n ts w h ic h in c lu d e d th is i s s ue , the r e byr a i s i ng the i s s ue on appe a l . T he r e f or e , G r i f f i n’ s 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 a ga i ns thi s appe l l a t e c ouns e l f a i l s the f i r s tpr ong of

the Str i c kland

te s t. G ri ff i n’ s c l ai m thattri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve si m i l ar l y f

ai l s. W hi l e tri al c o u n s e l d i d n o to b

j e c tt o th e c a l c u l a t i o n o f th e b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l o n th e s a me7

grou nd s s ucce ss ful for H ow ar d o n app ea l , he di d o bj ec tt o the ca l cul at i on on other g r o u n d s . I t is n o t e n o u g h to s h o w th a t th e r e w a s a n o m is s io n o rth a t c o u n s e l c o u ld ha ve done m or e ; G r i f

f i n m us ts how tha tthi s om i s s i on f e l l be l ow the r a nge of a c c e p tab le p r o f

e s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e . See Cha nd ler , 2 1 8 F .3 d . a t 1 3 1 3 . N e ve rthe l e s s , a s s um i ng c ouns e l w a s de f i c i e nt , G r i f

f i n ha s nots how n p r e ju d ic e r e s u lte d . W h e n th e m a g is tr a te r e c a lc u la te d th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e , G r if f in st i l l had a base l evel of 34 even gi ven the benefi tof ou r H o w a rd o p i n i o n , b ecau se th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ttr ib u te d a n a d d itio n a l 1 2 5 g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e to G r if

f in ba s e d on M a s s e y ’ s tr i a l t e s t i m ony . T he a ttr i but i on of the 125 gr a m s i s af

i ndi ng of f a c t r e v ie w e d f

o rc le a re rr o r . See Mi chael , 430 F . 3d a t1318. W hi l e “ s e nt e nc i ng c a n n o t b e b a s e d o n c a lc u la tio n s o f d ru g q u a n titie s th a t a r e m e r e lys p e c u la tiv e ,” it

“ m aybe base d o n fai r, ac cura t e, and con se rvat i ve es t i m at es . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Za p a ta , 139 F . 3d 1355, 1359 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I n de t e rm i ni ng am ou nt s, the courthas w i de di sc re t i on t o con si der r el evanti nform at i on prov i ded tha ti nf orm a t i on ha s s uf

f i c i e nti ndi c i aof

r e l i abi l i tya nd the de f

e nda ntha s the o p p o rtu n ityto c h a lle n g e e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im . U ni ted Stat es v. Q uery, 928 F . 2d 383, 384- 85 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtr e l i e d on M a s s e y ’ s t e s t i m ony r e g a r d in g th e q u a n titya n d typ e o f d ru g p u r c h a s e d f

r o m G r if f in . I t c a n n o t b e s a id th at th is w as sp ec u lati v e e v id en ce n o r w as th e f in d in g p re

ju d iced b y trial co u n se l’ s8

f a i l ur e t o obj e c t . B e c aus e the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upportthi s f i ndi ng, the d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tcl earl y err. T h i s ad d i t i o n al 1 2 5 g ram s o f co cai n e b ase s upport s the f

i ndi ng of aba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

34 e ve n i f

a n obj e c t i on ba s e d on r e le v a n t c o n d u c t h a d b e e n s u c c e s s f u l. T h e r e f

o r e , G r if f in c a n n o t s h o w th a t a d if f e r e n t o u tc o m e w a s p o s s ib le h a d h is tr ia l c o u n s e l r a is e d th is s p e c if ic a r g u m e n t. B ec ause he i s unabl e t o sho w prej ud i ce un der the Str i c kland s ta n d a r d , th is c la im al so fai l s. B a s e d on ar e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f s , w e di s c e rn no rev ersi b l e erro r. A cco rd i n g l y w e affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f G ri ffi n ’ s p ro se § 2255 m ot i on. A FFI R M ED .