FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 57 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 2: 02 -cr- 00 05 2- RWS, 2:0 4- cv -0 00 97 -RWS IRVIN LAMAR SI MPS ON, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 3, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Irv in Lam ar Si m

ps on , a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l of hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm .I. BACKG ROUND

A. Drug Sei zure an d Con vi cti on On M ay 10 , 20 01 , law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers co nduc te d v id eo su rv ei ll an ce on Co ol ey

Driv e, a d ead -en d s tre et , andob se rv edSim ps on en ga ge inwhat ap pe aredto be ha nd -to -h an d dru g t ran sa ct io ns . Sim ps on he ldan d o pe ne d up a pl as ti c b ag du rin g t he tra ns act io ns . Whi le un de r vi de o s urve il la nc e, Si m ps on pl acedth e p la st ic ba g i ns id e a t owe l an d h iditun de r th e fo un da ti on of ares id en ce at92 5 C oo le y

Driv e. One o f th e o ffi cers retrie ve d t he pl as ti c b ag fro m un de r th e ho us e. In si de was 1 2.8 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se . Afte r a jury tri al , Sim

ps on was c on vi ct edof a n u nr el at eddru g c ha rg e (Co un t 1 ) an d p os se ss in g at l eas t fi ve gra m s o f co cai ne ba se on May 10, 2 00 1 (Co un t 2 ). The d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a24 0- m on th sen te nc e o n C ou nt1 an d a 36 0- m on th sen te nc e o n C ount2, wi th th e two sen te nc es to be serve d c on cu rren tl y . Si m ps on ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es were af firm edon ap pe al . See Un it edSta te s v. Si m ps on , 82 F. App ’x 21 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. 1 B. Sect io n 2 25 5 E vi dent ia ry Hea ri ng

At sentenc ing, D efe ndant Simpson had six prior convic tions that resulted in 13 criminal 1 history points and qualified him as a c are er of fende r. With a criminal history cate g ory of VI , Simps on’s guidelines rang e wa s 360 months to l ife. 2InMay 200 4, Si m ps on pro se f

il edth is § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e h is to ta l 36 0- m on th sen te nc e, arg ui ng , am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t h is tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to fil e a m ot io n t o s up pr es s the dru gs fou ndat 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e co ns ti tu te d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce. The di stric t co urt re ferr edth e cas e to a m ag is tra te jud ge . At anev id en ti ary he ari ng , Defen da ntSim

ps on , hi s au nt , Oph el iaPark s, an d h is un cl e, Is aac Si m ps on , tes ti fie d t ha t Is aac S im ps on own edth e h ou se at 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e. 2 Is aac S im ps on in he rit edth e h ou se fro m hi s m ot he r (Defe nd an t Si m ps on ’s gr an dm ot he r). The y

als o t es ti fie d t ha t, atth e ti m e o f th e dru g s ei zu re, Defe nd an t Si m ps onwas l iv in g i n t he ho us e wit h h is co us in , Peyto n. Defe nd an t Si m ps on be ga n re nt in g t he ho us e in Nov em be r 20 00 an d p ai d h is un cl e $ 30 0 am on thin
ren t. Defen da ntSim

ps on tes ti fie d t ha t h e to ldhi s tria l at to rn ey , W il li am Mo rri so n, tha t h e li ve d a t 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e an d a sk edMo rri so n t o fi le a m ot io n t o supp res s. Si m

ps on de ni edev er t el li ng Mo rri so n t ha t h e li ve d wi th hi s fa th er o n Fl oyd Ro ad . Sim

ps on ackno wled ge d t ha t the ut il it ie s at92 5 C oo le y Driv e were i n Peyton ’s nam e.
Parks lived at 933 Cooley Drive in the house next door to 925 C ooley Drive. I saac 2 Simps on owned the 933 Cooley Drive house , too.

3Att orne y Mo rri so n t es ti fie d t ha t h e m etwith Def en da ntSim

ps on sev eral ti m es at t he jail whi le pre pa rin g S im ps on ’s cas e. Mo rri so n e xp la in edth at , bas ed
on hi s p ract ic e, he wou ldha ve : (1 ) co ns id eredwhethe r he co ul d b rin g am ot io n t o supp res s, (2 ) el ic it edfact s fr om Mo rri so n fr om

whi chto m ak e a d et erm in at io n o f whe th er the re was st an di ng to bri ng a m ot io n t o s up pr es s, an d (3 ) be enco nc ern ed ab ou t wh o o wne d o r oc cupi edth e h ou se . Morris on ha d n ot es of h is in te rv ie ws with S im ps on . Acco rd in g t o M orris on , Sim ps on ne ve r to ldhi m

th athe li ve d a t 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e dur in g t ho se m eet in gs . Morris on be li ev edth athe wou ldha ve ask ed Si m ps on“ so m ethi ng th atwou ldha ve eli ci te d t ha t i nf orm at io n h adhe li ve d a t tha t pa rti cu lar lo cat io n.” Furth erm or e, ba se d o n h is no te s fo r th e in it ia l i nt erv ie w, Mo rri so n b el ie ve d tha t h e d is cu ss edSim ps on ’s “ ne xu s” to th e h ou se an d l earn ed th atSim ps on ’s gra nd m ot he r an d u nc le own edit
. Befo re i nt erv ie win g S im

ps on , Mo rri so n re vi ewedpo li ce re po rts , no ne of whi chli st edSim

ps on ’s add res s as 92 5 C oo le y Driv e. Mo rri so n e xp la in edth at , ha d h e se enth e 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e ad dr es s i n t he rep orts , he wo ul d h av e as ke d Si m ps onab ou t i t. Mo rri so n t rie d t o d is cu ss with S im ps on whathe was d oi ng aro un d t he ho us e atth e ti m e o f th e su rv ei ll an ce v id eo tape , bu t Si m ps on was “ ve ry cau ti ou s” an d “ he si tantto di sc us s the fact s o f th e cas e.”
4Two m on th s l at er, Mo rri so n m etag ai n wi thSim ps onan d g athe redba si c bi og rap hi cal in fo rm at io n. Ba se d o n h is no te s, M orris on tes ti fie d t ha t Si m ps on sa id“ th athe was 3 2 years o ld , th athe ha d two ch il dr en , [an d] th athe li ve d a t 2 46 7 Fl oyd Ro ad ,” whi chwas atra il er o ne bl oc k away fro m th e Co ol ey

Driv e lo cat io n of th e dru g t ran sa ct io ns . Sim ps on to ldMo rri so n h e li ve d i n t he tra il er wi th hi s fathe r an d tha t the ho us e at92 5 C oo le y Driv e b el on ge d t o h is gra ndm ot he r. Mo rri so n e xp la in edth athe di d n ot“ ap pr oa chth is m at te r fro m on e o f st an di ng ,” be cau se inhi s p ro fes si on al op in io n “ th is was a s cl ear a n e xi ge ntcir cu m st an ces , pl ai n v ie w cas e as I ha d e ve r se en .” Mo rri so n c ou ldno t re cal l wh ethe r he ask ed Si m ps onif h e li ve d a t 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e. Age ntJer em

y Grin dl e wit h t he Hall Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce t es ti fie d t ha t o n May 10, 2 00 1, h e an d a no th er ag en t co nduc te d v id eo su rv ei ll an ce o f th e Co ol ey Driv e n ei gh bo rh oo d. Ag en t Gri nd le de sc rib edth e n ei gh bo rh oo d a s re si de nt ia l with l ot s o f pe op le walk in g a nddri vi ng by. Agen t Gri nd le di rect edth e o th er ag en t to sei ze the dru gs un de r th e h ou se at 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e wit ho uta warrantbe cau se he di d n otwantto co m

pr om is e anon go in g i nv es ti ga ti on an d b ecau se th ere wer e lo ts of c hi ldreninth e are a th athe di d n otwantto ge t ac ces s t o the dru gs . Agen t Grin dl e n ev er s aw Si m

ps on en te r th e h ou se at 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e, an d S im

ps on di d
no t s eem aware t ha t h e was un de r su rv ei ll an ce. 5C. Repo rt & Reco m m enda tio n

The m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort (“ R&R ”) re co m m en di ng th at Si m ps on ’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n b e g ran te d. Th e R&Rde te rm in edth atth e warra nt le ss se iz ur e o f th e dru gs was n otjus ti fie d b y th e p la in vi ew do ctrin e o r ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces . The m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otex pl ic it ly recon ci le th e co nf li ct be twee n M orris on ’s andSim ps on ’s tes ti m on y

ab ou t wh ere S im

ps onto ldMo rri so n he was l iv in g. Ra th er, the m ag is tra te jud ge ap pe aredto ass um e th atev enif Si m ps onto ldMo rri so n h e was li vi ng at 2 46 7 F lo y d R oa d, M orris io n was in effe ct iv e b ecau se : (1 ) Mo rri so n n ev er i nt erv ie wedDefen da ntSim ps on ’s aun t o r un cl e; (2) Mo rri so n n ev er d et erm in edth e li vi ng arrang em en ts at 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e; (3) Sim

ps on “ m ay

have be enrel uc ta ntto adm itth athe was re si di ng at 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e o n M ay

10 , 20 01 be cau se he be li ev edth atsu chanadm is si on wou ld
m or e d efi ni te ly con ne cthi m to th e 1 2.8 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se sei zedth ere,” bu t “ a reas on ab ly com

pe te ntde fen se co un se l wo ul d h av e ex pl ai ne d t o [S im ps on ],
. . . th athe co ul d m ov e to supp res s ev id en ce o f th e 1 2.8 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se if h e ha d aleg it im at e ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in tha t re si de nc e, i.e., i f he was re si di ng at 92 5 C oo le y

Driv e o r was a gu es t o f th e o wne r orth encurren t o ccupa nton May 10, 20 01 ”; an d (4 ) itap pe aredMo rri so n d idno t p ro vi de su chanex pl an at io n a nd

“ m ad e n o re al effo rt t o d et erm in e” Si m ps on ’s st an di ng to fil e a m ot io n t o s up pr es s 6be cau se he “ si m pl y di d n otbe li ev e th atsu cha m ot io n h adany ch an ce o f su cces s, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r [Si m ps on ] ha d s ta nd in g t o fi le itor n ot .” (Em ph as is ad de d)
. The R&R c on cl ud edth atMo rri so n’s fa il ur e to in ve st ig at e Si m ps on ’s st an di ng was un reas on ab le an d p reju di cedSim ps on be cau se th ere was a reas on ab le pro babi li ty th ata m ot io n t o s up pr es s wo ul d h av e b eensu cces sf ul
. D. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s O rder The go ve rn m en t o bjec te d t o t he R&R, arg ui ng , in te r al ia , th atitwas reas on ab le for

Mo rri so n t o s to p i nv es ti ga ti ng Sim ps on ’s li vi ng arrang em en ts on ce he lea rn edth athi s cl ie ntli ve d wi th hi s fa th er i n atra il er at24 67 Flo y d R oa d. The di stric t co urt d en ie d S im ps on ’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he R&R’s s ta te m en t o f th e ap pl ic ab le Fo urth Am en dm en t l aw, bu t reject edit s ap pl ic at io n o f th e fac ts to th e la w. The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t, be cau se Sim

ps on to ldMo rri so n h e li ve d a t 2 46 7 F lo y d R oa d, M orris on was n ot in effe ct iv e fo r rel y in g o n t ha t s ta te m en t an d n otin ve st ig at in g fu rth er h is
co nn ect io n t o 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e an d p os si bl e st an di ng , as fo ll ows : Whi le th e Co urt ag rees th a t co un se l ha s a du ty to fu ll y in ve st ig at e hi s cl ie nt ’s cas e an d al l le gi ti m at e de fen se s, th e Co urt do es no t fin d co un se l to be in ef f ect iv e fo r no t [s ic ] acce pt in g, witho ut furth er in ve st ig at io n, hi s cl ie nt ’s r e p r e s e nt at io ns co nc ern in g su ch ba si c fact s as hi s pl ace of res id en ce. Nor do es th e Co urt fin d th at co un se l is in effe ct iv e if he do es no t fram e hi s qu es ti on s to hi s cli en t with th e le ga l co ns eque nc es of hi s cl ie nt ’s po ss ib le res po ns es . [Si m ps on ] to ld Mr. Mo rri so n th at he li ve d
7at 24 67 Fl oyd Ro ad
. The Co urt is un wil li ng to co nc lu de th at in sp it e of

th at rep res en tati on by hi s cl ie nt , Mr. Mo rri so n wou ld be in effe ct iv e if he di d no t advi se [Si m

ps on ] th at if he l i v e d a t 92 5 Co ol ey Driv e, th e ev id e nc e ag ai ns t hi m co ul d po ss ib ly be supp res se d an d th en m ak e furth er i nqui ry

ab ou t h is res id en ce. (Ci ta ti on s o m it te d.) Th e d is tri ctco urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t M orris on di d n otfoc us on st an di ng be cau se of h is m is ta ke n b el ie f th atth e se iz ur e was pe rm is si bl e und er th e p la in vi ew do ctrin e an d due to ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces . Howev er, Mo rri so n d id
no t i gn or e th e se iz ur e is su e an d “ reas on ab ly ass um edst an di ng was l ack in g” ba se d
on Sim ps on ’s st at em en ts (th athe li ve d at 2 46 7 F lo y d R oa d) an d t he co rro bo rat iv e po li ce re po rts . The di stric t co urt g ran te d S im ps on a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity on th e fo ll owi ng is su e: “ DidSim ps on ’s tri al co un se l p ro vi de hi m with c on st itut io na ll y in effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y

fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d fi le a m ot io n t o s up pr es s the
co cai ne ba se sei zedat 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e o n M ay

10 , 20 01 , andus edas e vi de nc e ag ai ns t Si m

ps on at h is tri al ? ” II . DISCUSSI ON A. In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el To p rev ai l o n acla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e, a d efen da ntm us t de m on st rat e two th in gs : (1 ) “ th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt ,” an d (2 )

“ th atth e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e d efen se .” Str ic kl an d v
. 8W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4 (1 98 4) . Howev er, co urts

ne edno t “ ad dr es s b ot h c om po ne nt s o f th e in qu iry if th e d efen da ntm ak es an in su ffi ci en t s ho win g o n o ne .” Id . at 6 97 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 69
. 3 As t o t he fir stpro ng , th e d efen da ntha s the bu rd enof p ers ua si on “ to pro ve , by a prep on de ran ce o f co m pe te ntev id en ce, tha t co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was un reas on ab le ,” by est ab li sh in g “ th atpa rti cu la r an d i de nt ifi edact s o r omiss io ns of
co un se l wer e o ut si de th e wid e ran ge of p ro fes si on al ly com pe te ntass is ta nc e.” Ch an dl er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 18 F.3d13 05 , 13 13 -1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (enba nc ).

“ The reas on ab le ne ss of aco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce i s anob jecti ve in qu iry,” su chth at

“ a p et it io ne r m

us t es tabl is h t ha t n o c om

pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e ta ke n the act io n th athi s co un se l d idtak e.” Id . at 1 31 5. “ Inrev ie win g c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce, a co urt m us t av oi d u si ng th e d is to rti ng effec ts of h in ds ig htan d m us t ev al ua te th e reas on ab le ne ss of c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce fr om co un se l’s p ers pe ct iv e atth e ti m e.” Id . at 1 31 6 (quo tati on m ark s o m it te d)
. B. Cou ns el ’s Duty to I nv es tig at e

We reviewclaims of inef fec tive assistance of counse l de novo. Chandler v. United 3 States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2000) ( en banc ). In so doing, w e will not reve rse a district court’s c redibility

finding“unless it is contrar y to the laws of nature, or is so inconsistent or improbable on its fac e that no re asonable fac tfinder c ould acc ept it.” United States v. Pineiro, 389 F.3d 1359, 1366 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 9“ [C]ou ns el ha s a dut y to m ak e rea so nabl e in ve st ig at io ns or t o m ak e a reas on ab le de ci si onth atm ak es pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io ns un ne ces sa ry .” Str ic kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at69 1, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 66 . “ [A] part ic ul ar d eci si on no t t o i nv es ti ga te
m us t b e d ire ct ly ass es se d fo r rea so nabl en es s i n a ll th e ci rcu m st an ces , app lying a he av y m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to co un se l’s jud gm en ts .” Id . “ The reas on ab le ne ss of
co un se l’s ac ti on s m ay

be de te rm in edor s ub st an ti al ly infl ue nc edby the de fen da nt ’s ownst at em en ts or a ct io ns .” Id . “ [W] he n ade fen da ntha s g iv en co un se l re as onto be li ev e th atpu rs ui ng cert ai n i nv es ti ga ti on s wo ul d b e fru it le ss or ev enharm fu l, co un se l’s fa il ur e to purs ue th os e in ve st ig at io ns m ay no t l at er b e ch al le ng edas u nr eas on ab le .” Id .; s ee, e.g ., Stewa rt v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 47 6 F.3 d 1 19 3, 1 21 0- 11 (11 thCir . 20 07 ) (co nc lu di ng th atco un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve fo r fai li ng to in ve st ig at e cl ie nt ’s chi ldho odab us e whe n c li en t n ev er t ol d h im ab ou t itan d h ad“ in di cat edjus t the op po si te of p oo r tr eat m en t” (qu ot at io n m ark s an d br ack et s o m it te d) ). C. Si m ps on ’s Cla im Here, co m

pe te ntco un se l co ul d h av e rea so nabl y co nc lu de d t ha t Si m

ps on la ck edst an di ng to ch al le ng e th e warra nt le ss sei zu re o f th e dru gs . Accor di ng to th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs , whi chSim ps ondo es no t ch al le ng e o n app eal , Si m ps onne ve r to ldMo rri so n h e li ve d a t 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e. Infact , Sim

ps on to ld
10Mo rri so n h e li ve d i n atra il er wi th hi s fa th er at24 67 Flo y d R oa d. Mo rri so n

rev ie wedth e p ol ic e rep orts , no ne of wh ic h l is te d 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e as Sim

ps on ’s ad dr es s. WhenMo rri so n d is cu ss edwith S im ps on hi s co nn ect io n t o t he ho us e, he le arn edth atitwas o wne d b y Sim ps on ’s un cl e, no t Si m

ps on . In s ho rt, n on e o f th e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le to Mo rri so n a t the ti m e, in cl ud in g S im ps on ’s own st at em en ts , in di cat edth atfurth er i nv es ti ga ti ng Sim ps on ’s pl ace o f res id en ce wou ldha ve be enfru it fu l. Un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , Mo rri so n’s fa il ur e to furth er in ve st ig at e an d t o fi le a m ot io n t o s up pr es s the dru gs sei zedat 9 25 Co ol ey Driv e on May 10, 2 00 1 was no t d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. Bec au se Sim

ps on fai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n t o s ho w hi s tria l co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fe ll ou ts id e th e wid e ran ge of p ro fes si on al ly com pe te ntass is ta nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err inde nyin g h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n. 4 AFFIRMED.

Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt did not err a s to trial counsel’s pe rfor mance , 4 we do not addr ess whethe r counse l’s perf ormanc e pre

judiced Simpson. S ee Strickla nd, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. 11