FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 5, 2007 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- 16137 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo s . 0 4 - 6 1 6 2 9 - C V- DT KH

9 8 - 0 6 0 1 5 - CR - DTK J E F F R E Y F R A N K L 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F eder al pri soner J ef

fr eyF rank l i n, proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct2

c ourt ’ s de ni a l of

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2255 ( “ § 2255” ) m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , or c o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e . W e g r a n te d aC e rtif ic a te o f A p p e a lab ility( “C O A ” ) a s to w hether the di stri ctcourterre d i n fai l i ng t o h ol d an evi dent i ary heari ng on w hether tri al coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o i nform F rank l i n o f hi s r i gh tt o t es t i fyat tri al . O n app ea l , F rank l i n argues thathe shou l d h ave r ec ei ved an evi dent i ary h e a r in g o n h is a lle g a tio n th a t h is a tto rn e yf a ile d to a d v is e h im o f

h is r ig h t to te s tif

y . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D F r a n k lin , af

e d e r a l p r is o n e rs e rv in g a2 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o llo w in g h is c onvi c t i ons on num e r ous drug s m uggl i ng c ha r ge s , f i l e d the i ns t a nt§ 2255 m ot i on t o v ac at e. In hi s m ot i on , F rank l i n al l eged the fol l ow i ng errors : (1) tri al coun se l wa s i n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o i n f

o rm h i m th a th e h a d th e r i g h tt o t e s t i f yi n h i s o wn d e f e n s e ; ( 2 ) tr ia l 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 in f

o rm h im ab o u t th e s a f

e ty v a lv e p r o v is io n u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 ; a n d ( 3 ) h is s e n te n c e w a s b a s e d u p o n f a c ts f o u n d b yap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e s ta n d a r d r a th e rth a n b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. F ran k l i n arg u ed th ath i s att o rn ey p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y b y fai l i n g t o ad v i se h im o f h is r ig h t to te s tif

y . H e c o n te n d e d th a t th e d e n ia l o f ad e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to t e s t i f y“ tr a ns c e nd[ e d] ” the typi c a l pr e j udi c e a na l y s i s f

ori ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of3

c ouns e l c l a i m s , a nd pr e

j udi c e “ i s s uf

f i c i e nt l ypr ove n, i f

notpr e s um e d f

r om ” s uc h a de ni a l . R 1- 3 a t18. F r a nkl i n, i f i nf orm e d of hi s r i ghtt o t e s t i f

y , w oul d ha ve te s tif ie d to th e f

o llo w in g : ( 1 ) h e n e v e re n g a g e d in a n yd ru g tr a n s a c tio n s w ith h is co-defe nd ant s or the go vernm entw i tness es ; (2) he never r ec ei ved any fi nanci al paym ent s f

rom the go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es ; and (3) he w ou l d h ave c on tra di ct ed the a l l e ga t i ons m a de a ga i ns thi m bythe gove rnm e nt ’ s w i tne s s e s . H i s t e s t i m ony w ou l d h ave i ncre as ed “ the re al m of prob abi l i ty thathe w ou l d h ave been ac qu i tt ed. ” I d. a t19. A s s e rt i ng tha thi s a l l e ga t i ons c oul d notbe c onc l us i ve l ydi s pr ove d bythe r e c o r d , h e r e q u e s te d a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g s o th e m a tte rc o u ldb e p r o p e r ly d e v e lo p e d . F ran k l i n att ach ed an affi d av i tth atb ri efl y rei t erat ed th e co n t en t i o n s o f h i s § 2 2 5 5 s u p p o rtin g m e m o r a n d u m . H e s ta te d th a t if h e h a d b e e n a w a r e o f

h is r ig h t to te s tif yth a t h e w o u ldh a v e d o n e s o a n d b e e n ab le to a n s w e r“a n yq u e s tio n s . . . r e la tin g to m yc r im in a l c a s e .” R 1 - 6 a t 1 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t F r a n k lin ’s a lle g a tio n s w e r e in s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h th a t h e w a s d e n ie d e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. A d efen d an tm u st e s t abl i s h both pr ongs of 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 , de f

i c i e nt pe r f orm a nc e a nd pr e

j udi c e , t o pr e va i l on ar i ghtt o t e s t i f yc l a i m . T he gove rnm e nt co n t en d ed th atF ran k l i n co u l d n o tsh o w p rej u d i ce. F ran k l i n ’ s p ro p o sed t est i m o n y,4

tha the w a s noti nvol ve d i n a nydrug a c t i vi ty , w oul d notha ve be e n c r e di bl e nor w o u ldit h a v e r e f

u te d th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt. F r a n k lin f

a ile d to es t abl i sh prej ud i ce because there w as no re as on abl e probabi l i ty thathi s s el fs e rv in g te s tim o n yw o u ldh a v e c o n v in c e d th e ju ryto r e je c t th e e v id e n c e a n d a c q u it h i m. F rank l i n w as char ged for hi s r ol e i n a conspi ra cyt o sm ug gl e c on trol l ed s ubs t a nc e s thr ough P ortE ve r gl a de s . T he gove rnm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e c ons i s t e d of c o o p e r a tin g w itn e s s te s tim o n y , w ir e tap tap e s a n d tr a n s c r ip ts , a n d te le p h o n e to ll r e c or ds . C e c i l M c C l e od, the gove rnm e nt ’ s pr i m a ryw i tne s s , t e s t i f i e d about num e r ous drug s m uggl i ng tr a ns a c t i ons i nvol vi ng F r a nkl i n. T he gove rnm e nt of f e r e d r e c or di ngs of

t e l e phone c onve r s a t i ons , w hi c h M c C l e od i nt e rpr e t e d: B Y M R . S L O M A N [U S A tt o rn ey ]: Q . W he n M r . F r a nkl i n s a y s , “ Y a ’ l l s e e i ti n the s e c ond r ow , ” w ha tw a s he r e f

e rr i ng t o the r e ? W ha tdi d y ou t a ke tha tt o m e a n? A . T he cont ai ner.

. . . Q . A nd the r e f

e r e nc e t o the w or d i t , c ont e xti n the s e c ond r o w r e f e r s to w h a t? A . T he cont ai ner w i th the m ar i j uana. E xh. 8 a t1267. T he gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e d phone l ogs , w hi c h tr a c ke d phone n u m b ers cal l ed b y M cC l eo d , o n an d aro u n d th e d ru g sm u g g l i n g o p erat i o n d at es. F o re x a m p le , M c C le o d te s tif ie d th a t ap h o n e n u m b e ro n th e lo g b e lo n g e d to5

F r a nkl i n, a nd, on tha tc e rt a i n phone c a l l , M c C l e od w a s s e tt i ng up as m uggl i ng e ve nt . T he gove rnm e nta l s o r e l i e d upon the t e s t i m onyof tw o ports e c ur i tygua r ds w ho w e r e i nvol ve d i n the s m uggl i ng ope r a t i on. O ne of the s e c ur i tygua r ds t es t i fi ed t o a nu m ber of drug sm ug gl i ng transac t i on s i n w hi ch he and F rank l i n w er e both i nvol ve d. F rank l i n’ s e vi dence i ncl ud ed a num ber of w i tness es . V ernal a T urnq uest , an e l e c tr i c i a n , t e s t i f

i e d th a th e w o rk e d o n an u mb e ro f p r o j e c t s w i th Fr a n k l i n f

o rs o me of the co-defe nd ant s i n the ca se . G l ori a J ean F rank l i n M orri s, F rank l i n’ s m other, t est i fi ed th ath er so n w as a h an d ym an an d sh e o ft en l o an ed h i m m o n ey. L a tr ic e K e rtr in aF r a n k lin , F r a n k lin ’s w if e , te s tif ie d th a t h e rh u s b a n d d ida ir c ondi t i oni ng a nd l a nds c ape w ork f orM c C l e od. S he r e c e i ve d m a nyl a t e - ni ght p h o n e c a lls f

r o m M c C le o d ’s w if

e , w h o w a s try in g to lo c a te h e rh u s b a n d . F r a n k lin w o u ldth e n s ta rt m a k in g p h o n e c a lls to trya n d tr a c kM c C le o d d o w n . F r a n k lin c r os s - e xa m i ne d the gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s , a nd a r gue d tha tthe pr i m a rygove rnm e nt w itn e s s e s , th o s e w h o im p lic a te d F r a n k lin , p e r ju r e d th e m s e lv e s in a n a tte m p t to g ai n red u ced sen t en ces. F r a n k lin r e p lie d th a t a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g s h o u ldb e g r a n te d s o h is t e s t i m onyc oul d be e xa m i ne d f orc r e di bi l i tya nd ade t e rm i na t i on c oul d be m a de on w h e th e rs u c h te s tim o n yw o u ldh a v e in f lu e n c e d th e f

in a l o u tc o m e o f

h is tr ia l.6

F r a n k lin a r g u e d th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t o v e rw h e lm in g a n d th a t th e c o u rt c o u ld notr e a c h ac onc l us i on on the i m pa c tof hi s t e s t i m onyw i thouthe a r i ng a nd e v a lu a tin g it. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge i s s ue d ar e port , r e c om m e ndi ng tha tF r a nkl i n’ s § 2255 m ot i on be deni ed. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d thatF rank l i n fai l ed t o est abl i sh that he w a s pr e

j udi c e d byc ouns e l ’ s de f i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge e xpl a i nde d tha t : ( 1) the e vi de nc e a ga i ns tF r a nkl i n w a s s tr ong, ba s e d upon the t e s t i m onyof

c o- c ons pi r a t or s , phone r e c or ds , a nd t ape d phone c onve r s a t i ons ; a nd, ( 2 ) F r a n k lin ’s a tto rn e yp r e s e n te d a“v ig o r o u s , c o m p r e h e n s iv e d e f e n s e , f o r c e f u lly ch al l en g i n g th e cred i b i l i ty o f th e t est i fyi n g co -co n sp i rat o rs d u ri n g cro sse xa m i na t i on; ” R 1- 20 a t4, a nd ( 3) the de f e ns e w i tne s s e s pr ovi de d e xpl a na t i ons f or th e m a n yp h o n e c a lls b e tw e e n M c C le o d a n d F r a n k lin . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d bys t a t i ng:

F r a nkl i n doe s notpr of

f e rw ha thi s t e s t i m onyw oul d ha ve b e e n , o th e rth a n to a s s e rt h e w o u ldh a v e p r e s e n te d h is ve r s i on of

the f a c t s . A f t e rpa i ns t a ki ngl yr e vi e w i ng the tr a ns c r i ptf

r om thi s l e ngthytr i a l , the m ova nt ’ s a s s e rt i on tha tha d he t e s t i f

i e d, “ the r e a l m of

pr obabi l i tytha the w ou l d h ave been ac qu i tt ed w ou l d h ave i ncre as ed expo nent i al l y” no tw i thst andi ng , the un ders i gn ed c o n c lu d e s th a t th e r e is n o r e a s o n ab lyp r o b ab ilityth a t h is te s tim o n yw o u ldh a v e r e s u lte d in a n a c q u itta l. Id. at5 (ci t i ng R 1-3 at19 ) ( al t er at i on s om i tt ed).7

F r a nkl i n f

i l e d obj e c t i ons t o the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on, a r gui ng tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr one ous l yde c i de d tha tthe e vi de nc e s upport i ng hi s c onvi c t i on w a s ove rw he l m i ng, m a ki ng hi s t e s t i m ony m e a n in g le s s . H e c la im e d th a t h is c o n te n tio n w a s n o t th a t h is te s tim o n yw o u ld ha ve m a de adi f

f e r e nc e , r a the rtha thi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o t e s t i f yw a s vi ol a t e d, w h ic h r e q u ir e dth a t h is c o n v ic tio n s b e v a c a te d , irr e s p e c tiv e o f th e im p a c t h is t es t i m on y w ou l d h ave had. H e argued thatthere w as no evi dence i n the re cord that w o u ldd is p r o v e h is c o n te n tio n th a t h is a tto rn e yf a ile d to in f

o rm h im o f

h is r ig h t to te s tif y . M o r e o v e r , F r a n k lin a s s e rte d , th e c o u rt c o u ldn o t c o n s id e rth e im p a c t o f h is t e s t i m onyabs e nta n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng. T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r eportand d eni ed F rank l i n’ s § 22 55 m ot i on . T he di stri ctcourtthen d eni ed F rank l i n’ s m ot i on for a C O A , fi nd i ng thathe had fai l ed t o m ake asubst ant i al show i ng of the deni al of a const i tut i on al ri gh t . W e, ho w ever , grant ed a C O A on “ [w ] hether the di stri ctcourt erre d i n fai l i ng t o h ol d an evi dent i ary heari ng on w hether tri al coun se l w as i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o i nf

orm F r a nkl i n of

hi s r i ghtt o t e s t i f

ya ttr i a l . ” R 30 a t2. I I . DI S CUS S I ON F r a n k lin ’s p r im a ryc o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t h is t e s t i m onyw oul d notha ve c ha nge d the out c om e of the tr i a l w i thoute va l ua t i ng the8

t e s t i m onyhe w oul d ha ve pr ovi de d. H e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc oul d not e v a lu a te h is c r e d ib ilityo ra n ya d d itio n a l e v id e n c e h e m ig h t h a v e b e e n ab le to pr e s e ntw i thouta n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng. H e f urthe ra r gue s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e l i e d u p o n t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s , n o tp r e s e n t e d i n th e r e c o r d , t o d e n yh i s m o t i o n . He f oc us e s on the f

i r s tpr ong of

the i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l f

r a m e w ork, a r gui ng tha tthe c ourti gnor e d thi s pa rtof the a na l y s i s . H e r e que s t s ar e m a nd s o the d is tr ic t c o u rt c a n c o m p le te lyr e v ie w h is d e m e a n o ra n d te s tim o n y . W e rev i ew th e d en i al o f an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g o n a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n fo r ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . A r o n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 9 1 F .3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 4 n . 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . E vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ngs m us tbe he l d on m ot i ons t o va c a t e “ [ u] nl e s s the m ot i on a nd th e f ile s a n d r e c o r d s o f

th e c a s e c o n c lu s iv e lys h o w th a t th e p r is o n e ris e n title d to no re l i ef . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. T he sc op e of r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the i ss ues s peci fi ed i n the C O A . M urr a yv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 145 F . 3d 1249, 1250- 51 ( 11th C i r . 1998) (percuri am ).

“ [I ] f the pet i t i on eral l eges fa ct s that , i f true, w ou l d ent i t l e hi m t o rel i ef , then th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ldo r d e ra n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g a n d ru le o n th e m e r its o f h is c la im .” A r o n , 2 9 1 F .3 d a t 7 1 4 - 7 1 5 ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) .

“ M oreover, the courtshou l d con strue ahabeas pet i t i on by a pro se l i t i gantm ore lib e r a llyth a n o n e f

ile d b ya n a tto rn e y .” I d . a t 7 1 5 . A p e titio n e ris n o t e n title d to9

an evi dent i ary heari ng i f hi s c l ai m s “ ar e m er el y c on cl usory a l l egat i on s unsup po rt ed by spec i fi cs or cont ent i on s thati n the fa ce of the re cord are w ho l l y i ncre di bl e. ” T e ja d av . D u g g e r , 9 4 1 F .2 d 1 5 5 1 , 1 5 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( a d d r e s s in g is s u e in c o n te x t o f

2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . A c r im in a l d e f

e n d a n t h a s af

u n d a m e n ta l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to te s tif yo n h is ow n b ehal f a ttri al , a r i gh tthatcann otbe w ai ved b y def ense coun se l . U ni t ed S t at es v . T e a g u e , 9 5 3 F .2 d 1 5 2 5 , 1 5 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T h e ap p r o p r ia te vehi cl e f or cl ai m s thata def

ense coun se l ’ s a ct s l ed t o a vi ol at i on of thi s r i gh ti s an i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m . Id. at15 34 . W here defe nse c ou nsel has no ti nform ed the defendantof hi s r i gh tt o t es t i fy , defe nse c ou nsel “ has notac t ed w i thi n the r a nge of

c om pe t e nc e de m a nde d of a tt orne y s i n c r i m i na l c a s e s . ” G a l l e go v. U ni t ed S t at es , 17 4 F . 3d 11 96 , 11 97 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T he l egal st andard go verni ng the di sposi t i on of i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofc o u n s e l c la im s is d e r iv e d f r o m S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2052 ( 1984) . I n S tr i c kl a nd, the S upr e m e C ourte s t abl i s he d atw o- pr ong t e s tf or a dj udi c a t i ng 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 s . F i r s t , am ova ntm us ts how tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt . I d. a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064. T he pr ope rm e a s ur e of

a tt orne ype r f

orm a nc e i s “ r e a s onabl e ne s s unde rpr e va i l i ng10

p r o f e s s io n a l n o rm s .” I d . a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . C o u n s e l is “s tr o n g ly p r e s u m e d ” to h a v e r e n d e r e d a d e q u a te a s s is ta n c e a n d to h a v e e x e r c is e d r e a s o n ab le p ro fessi o n al j u d g m en t . Id . at6 9 0 , 1 0 4 S . C t . at2 0 6 6 . “ S eco n d , [a m o v an t ] m u st s h o w th a t th e d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e p r e

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e .” I d . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . T o p r o v e p r e

ju d ic e , am o v a n t m u s t s h o w th a t th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at th e o u tco m e w o u ldh av e b ee n d iffe re n t b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s unpr of e s s i ona l e rr or s . I d. a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2068. H er e, the di stri ctcourtdeni ed F rank l i n’ s § 22 55 m ot i on , w i tho utan e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng, a f

t e rf i ndi ng tha tF r a nkl i n’ s pr opos e d t e s t i m ony , i n l i ghtof bo th p art i es ’ tri al evi dence, w ou l d n othave cre at ed a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty that the tr i a l ’ s out c om e w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . F r a nkl i n m a ke s anum be rof a r gum e nt s on appe a l , i nc l udi ng tha tthe que s t i on i s notw he the rhi s t e s t i m ony w o u ldh a v e a lte r e d th e f in a l o u tc o m e , r a th e rit is w h e th e rh e w a s d e n ie d th e r ig h t to te s tif y . F r a n k lin , h o w e v e r , m u s t e s tab lis h d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e a n d p r e

ju d ic e to obt a i n r e l i e f

i n thi s § 2255 m ot i on. S e e i d. a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064; T e a gue , 953 F . 2d a t1535. A s the di s tr i c tc ourta s s um e d F r a nkl i n’ s c ouns e l pe r f orm e d de f

i c i e nt l y , the onl yque s t i on i s w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtc oul d c onc l us i ve l yrul e on the i s s ue of pr e j udi c e i n thi s c a s e w i thouta n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng. S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2255. T he11

d istrict co u rt re v iew ed th e e n ti re se v en -w ee ktrial tra n sc rip t an d F ra n k li n ’s a s s e rt i ons aboutthe na tur e of hi s t e s t i m onybe f

or e m a ki ng i t s de t e rm i na t i on on the p r e ju d ic e p r o n g . T h e tr ia l tr a n s c r ip t e x p lic itlyr e la te d th e e v id e n c e o n b o th s id e s in th e d ru g sm u g g l i n g case. T h e tri al tran scri p tan d F ran k l i n ’ s p ro p o sed t est i m o n y, a s pr of f e r e d i n hi s pl e a di ngs a nd a f f i da vi tf i l e d i n s upportof

hi s § 2255 pe t i t i on, prov i ded the di stri ctcourtw i th al l thati tneeded t o d et erm i ne w hether i tw as r e a s o n ab lyp r o b ab le th a t F r a n k lin ’s te s tim o n yw o u ldh a v e c h a n g e d th e o u tc o m e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a ve r e s , 100 F . 3d 995, 998 ( D . C . C i r . 1996) ( a s s i gni ng

“ sp eci al si g n i fi can ce t o th e d efen d an t ’ s p recl u d ed ri g h tt o t est i fy” w h i l e al so “in q u ir [ in g ] w h e th e rit is r e a s o n ab lyp r o b ab le th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s te s tim o n yw o u ld h av e c h an g ed th e o u tco m e o f th e trial in h is fa v o r” ). T h e e v id en ce o f F ra n k li n ’s g u ilt w a s o v e rw h e lm in g , w ith c o - c o n s p ir a to rte s tim o n yd ir e c tlyim p lic a tin g h im in the c r i m e s a nd i nde pe nde ntc orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng t e l e phone r e c or ds and t aped t el epho ne conv er sa t i on s i n w hi ch F rank l i n and a c o-defendantdi sc usse d the drug s m uggl i ng ope r a t i on. S e e i d. a t998- 99 ( “ E ve n i f T a ve r e s c oul d ha ve c o n tr ib u te d s o m e th in g n e w a n d s u b s ta n tiv e to h is d e f e n s e , th e e v id e n c e o f

h is g u ilt of po ss es si ng the 8, 44 0 d oses of L S D foun d i n . . . hi s hou se w as so strong that the r e i s no r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tyhi s t e s t i m onyw oul d ha ve a l t e r e d the out c om e of th e tr ia l.” ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lya s s e s s e d F r a n k lin ’s p r o f f e r e d te s tim o n yin12

lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t tr ia l th a t im p lic a te d h im in th e c r im in a l a c tiv itie s . A f t e ri t s r e vi e w , i tw a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on f

orthe di s tr i c tc ourtt o de c i de tha tF r a nkl i n c oul d nots how pr e j udi c e w i thouta n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng. I I I . CONCL US I ON B ec au se th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in re so lv in g F ra n k li n ’s

“ i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l ” c l ai m w i tho utcond uct i ng an evi dent i ary he a r i ng, i t s de ni a l of

F r a nkl i n’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , or co rrecth i s sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.