[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13254

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIS MAXI, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-24209-DLG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13254

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Willis Maxi, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He asserts that he was denied 

a full and fair suppression hearing when his prior attorney failed to 

call him to the stand to establish that he had not voluntarily consented to police entering the stash house where he was arrested.1 

He also argues that he was entitled to a post-conviction evidentiary 

hearing because his assertions were not patently frivolous, affirmatively contradicted by the record, or impermissibly generalized. 

After careful consideration, we affirm the district court’s denial. 

I

The issues presented in this appeal stem from the search of 

a Florida residence at which Maxi was present. Police received a 

tip that the residence was being used as a “stash house.” Officers 

approached the house and knocked. The officers contend that no 

one announced “police.” Maxi, who was in the house at the time, 

immediately opened the door. The officers questioned Maxi, who 

1 Maxi also complains that his counsel failed to include the allegations from his 

affidavit in his motion to suppress. But because this Court’s certificate of appealability covers only the question whether Maxi’s counsel was deficient for

failing to elicit testimony from him at the suppression hearing, we do not address the affidavit issue. See Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290–91 (11th 

Cir. 2009). 

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 2 of 7
22-13254 Opinion of the Court 3

stated he did not live at the residence. Later, a search warrant was 

obtained and evidence seized from the house. Maxi was taken into 

custody and informed of his Miranda rights. He then confessed to 

working for the drug-trafficking organization as a “cut man.” Ultimately, a jury convicted Maxi of four counts of drug-trafficking and 

firearms offenses, and the district court sentenced him to a total 

term of 312 months’ imprisonment. 

Before trial, Maxi moved to suppress physical evidence 

seized following a warrantless entry into the residence on the 

ground that the police lacked probable cause or exigent circumstances. The denial of that motion is the basis of the § 2255 motion 

at issue here. Maxi filed a pro se motion to vacate his 312-month 

sentence, arguing that his prior counsel was ineffective for failing 

to elicit testimony from him that he did not voluntarily consent to 

law enforcement’s entry into the stash house where he was arrested. 

At the hearing, Maxi’s counsel cross-examined the government’s witnesses and called four officers as witnesses. Maxi testified on his own behalf. His testimony centered around his association with the stash house and the scope of his access to the house. 

Based on testimony from the other witnesses showing the number 

of officers present at the scene and that their guns were drawn, 

Maxi’s lawyer argued that Maxi’s consent was not voluntary. The 

magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion be denied, finding that Maxi opened the door to the stash 

house voluntarily and not under a show of police authority. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13254

In the district court, Maxi argued that his counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to question Maxi during the suppression hearing about his observations at the time of the arrest and 

search. In support of his argument, Maxi presented an affidavit 

stating that sometime “prior to trial” he gave information to his 

lawyer about the encounter with police at the stash house that 

should have been presented in the hearing.2

The government responded that Maxi’s prior counsel’s failure to call him to testify did not rise to the level of constitutionally 

ineffective assistance of counsel because his would-be testimony 

was not persuasive and in fact could have been harmful to him. 

The government argued that Maxi’s testimony would be tempered 

by self-interest and that two witnesses contradicted his version of 

events. Therefore, the government argued, it was reasonable for 

Maxi’s counsel to conclude that the testimony was not helpful.

The district court issued an order denying Maxi’s § 2255 motion, stating that he was not entitled to relief because he could not 

show that any deficiency in his lawyer’s performance prejudiced 

him. And the district court denied Maxi’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing on the ground that he did not demonstrate that he was entitled to one. The district court declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability. Maxi filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 

2 For example, Maxi claims he told counsel that he “heard a loud pounding at 

the door,” and that when he looked through the peephole, he saw “several 

officers” with “guns drawn” and heard “about 10 police” screaming “This is 

the police! Open the door so we can talk to you.” 

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 4 of 7
22-13254 Opinion of the Court 5

district court also denied. Maxi appealed, and a member of this 

Court granted him a certificate of appealability on the issue before 

us now. 

II

In a proceeding on a § 2255 motion, we review the district 

court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal issues de novo. 

Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We review a district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 

motion for an abuse of discretion. Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 

767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014). “A district court abuses its 

discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in 

an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper procedures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are 

clearly erroneous.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant 

must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Deficient performance occurs when counsel’s representation falls below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a defendant is prejudiced 

when there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694 (1984). 

A court reviewing an ineffective-assistance claim need not address 

both components of the inquiry if the defendant fails to show one

of them. Id. at 697. A petitioner cannot establish an ineffectiveassistance claim by merely pointing to additional evidence that 

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13254

could have been presented. Rhode v. Hall, 582 F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th 

Cir. 2009). And generally, a determination about which witnesses, 

if any, to call, and when to call them, is the epitome of a strategic 

decision, and it is one that we will seldom, if ever, second guess. 

See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690–91 (“[S]trategic choices made after 

thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable . . . .”); Sanchez v. United States, 

782 F.2d 928, 935 (11th Cir. 1986) (“When a lawyer makes an informed choice between alternatives, his tactical judgment will almost never be overturned on habeas corpus.”). A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he alleges reasonably specific, 

non-conclusory facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief. Winthrop-Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216. “However, a district court need not 

hold a hearing if the allegations are patently frivolous, based upon 

unsupported generalizations, or affirmatively contradicted by the 

record.” Id. (quotation marks omitted)

Here, the district court did not err in finding that Maxi failed 

to establish that his prior counsel was ineffective. Maxi argues that 

his counsel should have elicited more testimony from him—but 

Maxi cannot establish an ineffective-assistance claim merely by 

pointing to additional evidence that could have been presented. 

Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284. And counsel’s strategic decision about 

whether to question Maxi about his observations during the police 

search was within the range of reasonable strategic decisions. Maxi 

failed to establish that his lawyer’s decision not to have him testify 

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, given that his 

testimony would have been contradicted by two other witnesses. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 6 of 7
22-13254 Opinion of the Court 7

See Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88. Moreover, Maxi failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s 

decision, given that his lawyer had already argued that Maxi was 

afraid and intimidated by police into opening the door, which is the 

same thing to which Maxi would have testified. The magistrate 

judge rejected this argument, and Maxi has not shown how his testimony would have changed the judge’s view of the case. 

Maxi’s separate argument that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing fails because the testimony he sought to introduce 

was affirmatively contradicted by two witnesses. See Winthrop-Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13254 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 7 of 7