FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAR 09, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1491 8
D. C. Dock et Nos . 04 -6 03 62 CV-J AG 00-062 58-CR-PC H LIDIA RAMOS, Peti ti on er-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, R espond ent-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida (M ar ch 9, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , F A Y a nd S IL E R, C ir cu it Judg es , *Upon her conviction on both the conspira cy and possession counts, the District Court 1 fo r t he Southe rn

Di str ic t of

F lor ida se nte nc e d Ra

mos to t wo c on c ur

re nt t e rm s o f t e n y e ars in prison. Ramos alleg es that her trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for misadvising her

to attend a 2 debrie fing confe renc e with g overnme nt ag ents, failingto attend the conf ere nce w ith her, improperly

cross-e x amining a

g overnme nt witness, admitting the substance of her debrie fing statement into evidenc e, fa iling to see k curative instruction or move for mistrial following that admission, and insisti ngthat she testify without the benef

it of pre- trial prepa

ration. Whether a de fenda

nt rec eived inef

fec tive assistance of counse l is a mix ed question of 3 law and f act that we revie w de novo. Mc Nair v. Campbe ll, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 PE R CU RIA M. In this appeal, L idia Ram os seeks to vacate her convictions and sentences 1 fo r both c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te f ive or m or e kil ogr am s of
co ca ine , in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. § 84 6, a nd p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te fi ve or m or e kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne , in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ). R am os fi le d th e m oti on t o va ca te pur suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 22 55, c ont en din g th at a t tri al , she r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el a s art ic ula te d inS tr ic kland v
.

2 W ashingt on, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L . E d. 2d 674 (198 4). The district
c o u rtd e n i e dt h e mo t i o n , a n dw e a f f i rm. 3 T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef

er re d th e m oti on t o va ca te to a m ag istra te j udge , w ho
co nduc te d a n e vid en tiary he ar ing r eg ar din g R am os’ s S tr ic kland c la im s. T o pr ev ai l
on an in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el c la im , the pe tit ion er m ust e sta bli sh b oth deficient perfor

m ance of c ouns el and prej udice to the defense resulting from that3

de fi ci en t pe rf

orm an ce . S tr ic kland, 466 U
. S. a t 68 7, 104 S
. Ct
. a t 20 64. I t i s w el lse ttl ed , m or eo ve r, tha t a

c ourt m ay

de cl ine to ad dr es s th e iss ue of de fi ci en t pe rf orm an ce if

the pe tit ion er

c an not de m onst ra te pr ej udi ce . W at er s v. T hom as , 46 F. 3d 1 506, 151 0 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5)
. O n Ju ly 19, 200 5, the m ag istra te j udge iss ue d a
re port c onc lud ing tha t, giv enRam os’ s be ha vio r on the da y of the inc ide nt, a s w el l
as he r post -arr es t or al and w ri tte n st at em en ts, suf fi ci en t e vid en ce e xis te d to supp ort bo th c onvi ct ion s and tha t “ the f undam en ta l f

ai rn es s of the tr ia l w as not
co m pr om ise d. ” F ind ing no p re j udi ce , the m ag istra te j udge r ec om m en de d th at

the
m otion to vacate be denied. A fter an independ ent review , the district court ad o p t ed t h e mag i s t ra t e ju d g e’s re p o rt an dre co m m en d at i o n , a n d

d en i ed Ra m o s ’s
m ot io n t o v acat e. A ft er c onsi de ri ng the a rg um en ts p re se nte d, w e ag re e. T he j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.