# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 18 53

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Dwig ht A. Thomas

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an t - Ap

pe ll an t

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 20 13
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 16 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

D w i g ht A. Tho m as ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to va cat e, se t as id e, or

co rrec t hi s sen te nc e pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. Tho m as al le ge s hi s tri al co un se l

was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to m ov e to di sm is s hi s in di ct m en t fo r vi ol at io n of hi s Si xt hAm en dm en t rig ht to a sp eed y tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s mo t i o n wit ho ut a 1

he ari ng

. He th en fil ed a Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m

th e jud gm en t, an d t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n. We affi rm

.

I.

A fed eral gr an d jury ret ur n e d a two -co un t in di ct m en t ag ai ns t Tho m as on

Octo be r 5, 20 04

, ch arg in g hi m wit h Co un t 1, di st rib ut in g b e t w e e n t h ree an d fo ur

gr am s of co cai ne ba se in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(C)

, an d Co un t
2, po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e at le as t 50 gr am s, bu t no t m or e th an 15 0 gr am s

of co cai ne ba se , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) an d (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ). An arre st

warra nt was pr om

pt ly is su ed bu t erro ne ou sl y li st ed Tho m as ’s bi rth da te

. Due to th is

erro r, Tho m as was no t ap pr eh en de d on th e in di ct m en t un ti l Feb ru ary 20 08

, whe n he

was ta k e n in to cu st od y fo r a se pa rat e dr ug in ci de nt

, ap pr ox im at el y th ree y ears an d

fo ur m on th s af

te r th e in di ct m en t was en te red

.

Afte r hi s arre st

, th e co ur t ap po in te d co un se l to rep res en t hi m

. Tho m as w as

arra ig ne d on Feb ru ary 26

, 20 08

, an d he pl ed no t gu il ty to t h e 2 0 0 4 c h arg es

. The

Gov ern m en t th en fil ed an in fo rm at io n un de r 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1 al le gi ng th at Tho m as

ha d two fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on s pr i o r t o t he 20 04 in ci de nt

. The effe ct of th e

in fo rm at io n was to pr ov id e fo r a m an da to ry se nt en ce of li fe im pr is on m en t if Tho m as

were co nv ic te d on Co un t 2. 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A). Afte r tri al

, th e jury co nv ic te d

hi m on bo th co un ts

. The co ur t se nt en ced Tho m as to 24 0 m on th s im pr i s o n ment on

Co un t 1 an d l ife on Co un t 2 , to ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. W e affi rm ed th e co nv ic ti on s an d

se nt en ces . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tho m as , 59 3 F .3d 75 2 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

The Hon or ab le Greg or y Kay s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Tho m as th en m ov ed

, un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t

hi s se nt en ce ba se d on a vi ol at io n of hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri g h t t o t he effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l. He al le ge d th at co un se l ne ve r di s c u s s e d w it h hi m th e

po ss ib il it y of m ov in g to di sm is s th e cas e ba se d on a sp eed y t r i a l v i o l a ti on , an d th e

fai lu re to fil e su ch a m ot io n to di sm is s pr ejud ic ed hi m

. In res po ns e, tri al co un se l fil ed

an affi da vi t th at as se rte d he ha d di sc us se d th e op ti on of m ov in g to di sm is s on sp eed y
tri al gr ou nd s wit h Tho m as , an d Tho m as ag reed wit h hi s at to rn ey ’s de c i s i o n t h a t it

was be tt er to go to tri al on th e 20 04 in di ct m en t th an to de fen d ag ai ns t a 20 08 in ci de nt

fo r w h i c h h e w as arre st ed bu t ha d no t be en in di ct ed

. The at to rn ey reas on ed th at : (1 ) in 20 04

, Tho m as was ou ts id e of th e dr ug ho us e bu t in 20 08 he was in si de th e
ho us e in whi ch th e dr ug s were fo un d, (2 ) th e in fo rm an t fro m t h e 2 0 0 4 cas e was no
lo ng er av ai la bl e, (3 ) fewer wit ne ss es were av ai la bl e in th e 20 04 cas e, (4 ) a jury m ig ht

vi ew an ol de r cas e as le ss im po rta nt

, (5 ) th e 20 04 cas e wou ld be m or e di ffi cu lt fo r th e

go ve rn m en t to pr ov e, an d (6 ) if th e co ur t di sm is se d th e 20 04 cas e, Tho m as wou ld be

ch arg ed w i t h t h e 20 08 dr ug sa le

, an d wou ld ha ve m or e di ffi cu lt y wor ki ng ou t a

reas on ab le pl ea ag reem en t.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d fo un d a he ari ng un ne ces sa ry be cau se

th e reco rd co nc lu si v e l y sh owe d th at co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was reas on ab le

. The

co ur t sp eci fic al ly fo un d th at Tho m as ’s cl ai m s were co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd

be cau se , ba se d on co un se l’s affi da vi t, Tho m as ag reed wit h th e de ci si on no t to fil e a

m ot io n to di sm is s on sp eed y tri al gr ou nd s. Bec au s e co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was

reas on ab le

, th e co ur t di d no t co ns id er whe th er th e al le ge d in effe ct iv en es s pr ejud ic ed

Tho m as

. Tho m as th en fil ed a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t, whi ch

th e di st ric t co ur t su m

m ari ly de ni ed

, an d Th o mas ap pe al ed

. Thi s co ur t gr an te d a

-3

-cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y as to Tho m as ’s “ sp eed y -tr ia l cl ai m an d on hi s Ru le 60 (b )

cl ai m .” 2

II.

Tho m as arg ue s (1 ) he sh ou ld ha ve be en affo rd ed an ev id en ti ary he ari ng
be cau se th e fil es an d re co rd s o f th e cas e d o n ot co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is h th at he is no t

en ti tl ed to 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 re li ef, an d (2 ) th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n
de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t un de r Ru le 60 (b ). W e ad dr es s each

cl ai m in tu rn

.

A.

Our rev ie w of a di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng in a 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 pr oc eed in g i s d e

no vo bo th on m at te rs of l aw an d o n m ix ed qu es ti on s of law an d fact

. Uni te d S ta te s

v. Du ke , 50 F.3 d 57 1, 57 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on to

de ny an ev id en ti ary he ari ng f o r ab us e of di sc ret io n; ho wev er, we are ob li ga te d “ to

lo ok be hi nd th at di sc ret io na ry de ci si on to th e co ur t’s reject io n of th e cl ai m on it s

m eri ts , wh ic h is a le ga l co nc lu si on th at we rev ie w d e no vo .” Noe v. Uni te d St at es ,

The cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y di d n ot in cl ud e th e is su e of th e eff ect iv en es s 2

of Tho m as ’s co un se l. W hi le or d i n a r i ly ou r rev ie w is li m it ed to th e cert ifi cat e of

ap pe al ab il it y , de la Ga r z a v

. F a bi an , 57 4 F.3 d 99 8, 10 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), we ret ai n

“ di sc ret io n t o co ns id er su a sp on te is su es be y on d th os e sp eci fie d in a cert ifi cat e of

ap pe al ab il it y ,” Un i t ed St at es v. Mo rg an , 24 4 F.3 d 67 4, 67 4- 75 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (en
ba nc ). Here, we fin d it ap pr op ria te to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e by in cl ud in g Tho m as ’s
in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of c ou ns el cl ai m be cau se Tho m as fil ed hi s Mo ti on fo r Cert ifi cat e of App eal ab il it y pr o se , an d th us th e is su es were no t pr es en te d as cl earl y

as th ey ot he rwis e m ay ha ve be en

. See Kin g v. Uni te d St at es , 59 5 F.3 d 84 4, 85 4 n.5 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

-4

-60 1 F.3 d 78 4, 79 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Sau nd ers v. Uni te d St at es , 23 6 F.3 d 95 0,

95 2 (8 th Cir . 20 01 )).

Evi de nt ia ry he a r i n g s o n 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io ns are pr efer red

, an d th e

ge ne ral ru le is th at a he ari ng is ne ces sa ry pr io r to th e m ot io n’s di sp os it io n if a fact ua l

di sp ut e ex is ts

. See Grad y v. Uni te d St at es , 26 9 F.3 d 91 3, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Pel ti er, 73 1 F.2 d 55 0, 55 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). The di st ric t co ur t is no t pe rm it te d

to m ak e a cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n on th e affi da vi ts al on e; th us if th e de ci si on tu rn s

on cred ib il it y , th e di st ric t co ur t m us t co nd uc t a he ari ng

. Kin gs be rry v. Uni te d St at es , 20 2 F

. 3 d 10 30

, 10 32 -3 3 & n.6 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). An ev id en ti ary he ari ng m ay be

de ni ed

, ho wev er, if th e m ot io n, fil es , an d reco rd s of th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow th at

th e m ov an t is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f. 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 5 ( b )

. Th e co ur t m ay fin d th is

co nc lu si v e sh owi ng if ei th er “ (1 ) th e [p et it io ne r’s] al le ga ti on s, acce pt ed as tru e,

wou ld no t en ti tl e t h e [p et it io ne r] t o rel ie f, or (2 ) th e al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed

as t r u e b e c a us e th ey are co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd

, in he ren tl y in cred ib le

, or

co nc lu si on s rat he r th an st at em en ts of fact .” Bu st er v. Uni te d St at es , 44 7 F.3 d 11 30

, 11 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng San de rs v. Unit ed St at es , 34 1 F.3 d 72 0, 72 2 (8t h Cir.

20 03 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Tho m as fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y in cl ud ed tri al co un se l’s

affi da vi t in th e fil es an d reco rd s of th e cas e. In 19 78

, th is co ur t pr os cri be d th e us e of

affi da vi ts as pa rt of th e fil es an d reco rd s of t h e c as e whe n m ak in g cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io ns

. Lin dh or st v. Uni te d St at es , 58 5 F.2 d 36 1, 36 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ).

Howev er, t he su bs eq ue nt Ru le s Go ve rn in g 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 su pe rced ed Lin dh or st

an d no w pe rm it th e us e of affi da vi ts

. Sp eci fic al ly, Ru le 7 pr ov id es th at “ [a]ffid av it s

al so m ay be su bm it te d an d co ns id ered as pa rt of th e reco rd .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, Ru le

7. In ad di ti on , Ru le 8 pr ov id es th at “ th e jud ge m us t r ev ie w [th e reco rd ] an d an y

m at eri al s su bm it te d un de r Ru le 7 to de te rm in e w h e t h e r a n ev id en ti ary he ari ng is

warra nt ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, Ru le 8. Und er th es e ru le s, t r i a l c o u r t s no w m ay

-5

-co ns id er af

fid av it s as pa rt o f th e fil es an d reco rd s o f th e cas e. See Ki ng sb erry, 202

F.3 d a t 1 03 1 & n.2

.

Tho m as ne xt arg ue s a he ari ng is warra nt ed be cau se he de m on st rat ed th at hi s

co un se l was in effe ct iv e, th us , th e fil es an d reco rd s of th e ca se do no t co nc lu si ve ly

e s t a bl is h th at he is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f. Gen eral ly, to be su cces sf ul on a c l a i m o f

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, a de fen da nt m us t “ sh ow bo th de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce by co un se l an d pr ejud ic e to th e de fen se cau se d by th at pe r f o r man c e

. ” Barg er v.
Uni te d St at es , 20 4 F.3 d 11 80

, 11 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (ci ti ng St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n,

46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7 (1 98 4) ). “ Defi ci en cy m ean s th at co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fel l be lo w

an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss , an d pr ejud ic e m ean s th at

, bu t fo r co un se l’s

erro rs , a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ex is ts th at th e res ul t

. . . wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.”

Delt or o- Agu il era v. Uni te d St at es , 62 5 F.3 d 43 4, 43 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng

St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , 69 4)

.

The de fen da nt be ars th e b u r d e n t o ov erco m e th e st ro ng pr es um pt io n th at

co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was reas on ab le

. Mi dd le to n v. Ro pe r, 45 5 F.3 d 83 8, 84 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ). Howev er, st rat eg ic ch oi c e s mad e d u e to a la ck of pr ep arat io n or

in ve st ig at io n are no t pr ot ect ed by th e sa m e pr es um pt io n. St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at 69 0-

91 ; Arm st ro ng v. Kem

na , 53 4 F .3d 85 7, 8 64 -6 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ). An at to rn ey is no t

in co m pe te nt in ex erci si ng reas on ab le pr of es si on al jud gm en t ev en whe n, in hi nd si gh t,

th e de ci si on m ay ha ve be en a m is ta ke

. Bro wn v. Uni te d St at es , 65 6 F.2 d 36 1, 36 3
(8 th Ci r. 19 81 ). Bu t, an at to rn ey m us t co nd uc t m or e th an a cu rs or y in v e s t i g at io n.

See W ig gi ns v. Sm it h, 53 9 U.S. 51 0, 52 7 (2 00 3) (ci ti ng St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at 69 1) ;

se e al so Nels on v. Harg et t, 98 9 F.2 d 84 7, 85 0- 51 (5 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (fi nd in g th at

, on th e

pa rti cu la r fact s, th e fai lu re to fil e a sp eed y tri al m ot io n was no t a reas on ab le t r ia l

st rat eg y bu t i ns te ad ap pe ared to be th e res ul t o f in effe ct iv e in ve st ig at io n)

.

-6

-The accu se d ha s th e “ ul ti m at e au th or it y to m ak e cert ai n fu nd am en ta l de ci si on s

reg ard in g th e cas e.” Jo ne s v. Barn es , 46 3 U.S. 74 5, 75 1 (1 98 3)

. The at to rn ey , on th e

ot he r ha nd

, h a s th e res po ns ib il it y of m ak in g ta ct ic al de ci si on s of tri al st rat eg y

. St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S

. a t 68 9; San de rs v. Tric ke y , 87 5 F.2 d 20 5, 20 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 )
( n ot in g th at

, whe n de te rm in in g whe th er co un se l’s rep res en ta ti on was de fic i e n t

, a

“ co ur t m us t av oi d s e c o n d

- gu es si ng tri al st rat eg y ”). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

reco gn iz ed on ly fo ur fu nd am en ta l ch oi ces th at a de fen da nt al way s ha s th e rig ht to

m ak e. See Jo ne s, 46 3 U.S. at 75 1; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Bo y d, 86 F.3 d 71 9, 72 3
(7 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (rea so ni ng th at

, as id e fro m the fo ur fu nda m en ta l de ci si on s en um erat ed
by th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Jo ne s, al l ot he r tri al de c i s io ns are st rat eg ic de ci si on s

res erv ed fo r co un se l). Tho se fu nd am en ta l ch oi ces rem ai ni ng wit h th e de fen da nt are

th e de ci si on “ whe th er t o p le ad gu il ty, waiv e a jur y , tes ti fy in hi s or he r own be ha lf,

or tak e an ap pe al .” Jo ne s, 4 63 U.S. at 7 51

The Su pr em e Co ur t has no t enu m erat ed th e de ci si on to m ov e to di sm is s fo r a
Si xt h Am en dm en t sp eed y tri al vi ol at io n as a fu nd am en ta l ch oi ce res erv ed fo r th e
de fen da nt

, Jo ne s, 46 3 U.S. at 75 1, an d su ch a de ci si on do es no t ha ve ch arac te ris ti cs
si m il ar t o t ho se in th e Co ur t’s en um erat ed li st

. A d efen da nt is pr ot ect ed whe n t ria l

ta ct ic s are res erv ed fo r tra in ed co un se lo rs

. S e e B o yd, 86 F.3 d at 72 3 (“ Peo pl e
ch arg ed wit h cri m e are by an d la rg e be tt er of f acce pt in g th e de ci si on s of ex pe rie nc ed

tri al l a w ye r s th an th ey wou ld be m ak in g th ei r own de ci si on s; an am at eu r who

rece iv es pro fes si on al ad vi ce i s s ti ll an am at eu r.”).

The rig ht to a sp eed y tri al is di st in ct fro m ot he r rig ht s en sh r i ne d in th e

Co ns ti tu ti on to pr ot ect th e accu se d. Bark er v. W in go , 40 7 U.S. 51 4, 51 9- 20 (1 97 2)

. The ch oi ces en um erat ed in Jo ne s are gu aran te ed be cau se th ei r de pr iv at io n pr ejud ic es

th e de fen da nt ’s rig ht to de fe n d h im se lf. The y “ na tu ral ly res id e wit h th e de fen da nt

be cau se th ey im

pl ic at e th e two m os t ba si c te ne ts of ou r le ga l syste m —t he op po rtu ni ty

to ha ve a da y in co ur t and th e op po rtu ni ty to ha ve a jury of pe ers .” Uni te d St at es v.

-7

-W as hi ng to n, 19 8 F.3d 72 1, 72 4 (8t h Cir. 19 99 ). Co nv ers el y , th e de ni al of a sp eed y

tri al

, no t im

pl ic at in g th es e ba si c t e n a n t s , do es no t pe r se pr ejud ic e th e de fen da nt ’s

ab il it y to de fen d hi m se lf. Bark er, 40 7 U.S. at 51 9- 20

. W he th er or no t a moti on is

m ad e to di sm is s ba se d up on Si x th Am en dm en t sp eed y tri al gr ou nd s, th e de fen da nt

is gu aran te ed hi s da y in co ur t be fo re a jury of pe e r s

. I n f act

, a de la y in tri al

so m et im es m ay wor k to th e de fen da nt ’s ad va nt ag e, as wit ne ss es be co m e un av ai la bl e

or m em or ie s fa de , weak en in g t he pro se cu ti on ’s cas e.

Mo reo ve r, th is de c i s i o n i s un li ke th e fu nd am en ta l de ci si on s th at th e accu se d

ha s th e rig ht to m ak e be cau se it do es no t in vo lv e ch oi ces eas il y co m pr eh en si bl e to a

la y pe rs on . See Wash in gt on , 1 98 F.3 d a t 7 23 -2 4; see als o B oyd, 86 F.3d at 7 23 -2 4
( r e a s o ni ng th at th e de ci si on to m ak e a pr eem pt or y ch al le ng e is no t as eas il y

co m pr eh en si bl e to a la y pe rs on an d th us is res erv ed fo r th e at t o r n ey ). The

fu nd am en ta l ch oic es en

um er at ed in Jone s in vo lv e eas il y un de rs to od al te rn at iv es , su ch

as whe th er to adm it gu il t or ass ert in no cen ce, whi le th e de ci si on to m ov e to di sm is s

fo r a sp eed y tri al vi ol at io n can in vo lv e th e co m pl ic at ed weig hi ng of fact or s an d

pr ed ic ti ng of po s s i b l e ou tc om es

. Bec au se of th e po ss ib il it y of th e de fen da nt ’s

st rat eg ic ad va nt ag e, co ur ts ap pl y a ba la nc in g te st

, in st ead of au to m at ic al ly di sm is si ng

th e in di ct m en t, whe n a m ot io n is m ad e to di sm is s fo r sp eed y tri al vi ol at io ns

. Bark er,

40 7 U.S. at 52 0. W he th er a vi ol at io n ha s oc cu rred can b e d e t e r mi n e d on ly aft er

co ns id erat io n of al l th e rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces of th e c a s e at ha nd

, in cl ud in g an y

pr ejud ic e to th e accu se d an d th e pr os ecu ti on

. See ge ne ral ly Uni te d Stat es v. Lewis

, 90 07 F.2d 77 3, 77 4 (8t h Cir. 19 90 ). In t he in st an t ca se , tri al co un se l’s d eci si on no t

to m ov e to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t in vo lv ed ga ug in g th e effe ct of a po ss ib le di sm is sa l

on pl ea ne go ti at io n s w i th res pe ct to an ot he r in ci de nt

, co m pa rin g th e po ss ib il it y of

su cces s at tri al on th e cu rren t ch arg es to po ss ib le fut ur e ch arg es , and pre di ct in g t he

ab il it y of th e go ve rn m en t to effe ct iv el y pr es en t a cas e. Thi s de ci si on in vo lv es m at te rs

of st rat eg y be tt er res erv ed fo r th e ap pl ic at io n of a tra in ed at to rn ey ’s ex pe rti s e , se e

Bo wm an v. Gam

m on , 85 F.3 d 13 39

, 13 45 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (in di cat in g th at th e at to rn ey

-8

-can ap pr op ria te ly deci de as a “ ta ct ic al tri al de ci si on in th e in te res ts of hi s cl ie nt ” to

no t m ov e to di sm is s on Sp eed y Tria l A c t g r o u n d s ). Acco rd in gl y , th e de ci si on
whe th er to m ov e to di sm is s fo r a sp eed y tri al vi ol at io n is a ta ct ic al de ci si on of tri a l

st rat eg y

.

In th is cas e, tri al co un se l pr es en te d an affi da vi t id en ti fyi n g reas on s fo r no t

m ov in g to di sm is s th e cas e on sp eed y tri al gr ou nd s. Tho ug h Tho m as di sp ut es th at

th ere was ev er a m eet in g co nc ern in g th e de ci si on as to whe th er to fil e a m ot io n, he

do es no t co nt es t th e lo gi c of hi s at to rn ey ’s reas on in g or th e de pt h of hi s in ve st ig at io n.

Rat he r, he as se rts on ly th at co un se l erre d in no t co nf erri ng wit h hi m an d th at th ere “ is

no ev id en ce

. . . th at in di cat e[s ] th e fai lu re to fil e a m ot io n to di sm is s was du e to an y

st rat eg y .” W e fin d th at th e tri al co un se l’s de ci si on was wit hi n th e wid e r a n ge of

de fen se co un se l co m

pe te nc e d em an de d b y

th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.

In co nc lu si on , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at an ev id en ti ary he ari ng was

no t req ui red

. Eve n if, as Tho m as cl ai m s, co un se l di d no t c o n f e r w i t h hi m as to th e
de ci si on no t to m ov e fo r di sm is sa l of th e in di ct m en t on sp eed y tri al gr ou nd s, th is was

a ta ct ic al de ci si on whi ch co un se l co ul d pr op erl y m ak e wit ho ut hi s cl ie nt ’s in pu t. See

W ai nwr ig ht v. Sy ke s, 4 3 3 U.S. 72

, 93 (1 97 7) (Bu rg er, C.J

., co nc ur rin g)

. Thu s,
Tho m as ’s cl ai m fai ls on th e fir st

, de fic ie nc y pr o n g un de r St ric kl an d an d we do no t

ad dr es s wh et he r th e fai lu re t o fi le th e m ot io n was pre jud ic ia l.

B.

Tho m as al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r
rel ie f fro m

th e jud gm en t b ecau se th e di st ric t cou rt erred in in cl ud in g tri al co un se l’s

affi da vi t in th e fil es an d reco rd s of th e cas e. W e rev ie w th e d e n i al of a Ru le 60 (b )

m ot io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, whi ch is fo un d on ly whe n th ere are cl earl y erro ne ou s

fin di ng s of fact or con cl us io ns of la w. Noa h v. Bo nd Co ld St or ag e, 40 8 F.3d 10 43

,

-9

-10 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ri am ). Bec au se , un de r th e Ru le s Gov ern in g 28 U.S.C.

§ 22 55

, th e co ur t pr op erl y to ok in to acco un t th e affi da vi t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err

in de nyin g t he Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n.

III.

W e co nc lu de th at be cau se t h e d eci si on whe th er to m ov e to di sm is s was a

ta ct ic al de ci si on m ad e wit hi n hi s co un se l’s di sc ret io n, Tho m as is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f.

Thu s, an evi de nt ia ry he ari ng was no t warra nt ed

. W e al so fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot err i n d en y in g t he Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n.

Affi rm ed

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-