Opinion ID: 3061862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Simpson’s Claim

Text: Here, competent counsel could have reasonably concluded that Simpson lacked standing to challenge the warrantless seizure of the drugs. According to the district court’s findings, which Simpson does not challenge on appeal, Simpson never told Morrison he lived at 925 Cooley Drive. In fact, Simpson told 10 Morrison he lived in a trailer with his father at 2467 Floyd Road. Morrison reviewed the police reports, none of which listed 925 Cooley Drive as Simpson’s address. When Morrison discussed with Simpson his connection to the house, he learned that it was owned by Simpson’s uncle, not Simpson. In short, none of the information available to Morrison at the time, including Simpson’s own statements, indicated that further investigating Simpson’s place of residence would have been fruitful. Under these circumstances, Morrison’s failure to further investigate and to file a motion to suppress the drugs seized at 925 Cooley Drive on May 10, 2001 was not deficient performance. Because Simpson failed to meet his burden to show his trial counsel’s performance fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance, the district court did not err in denying his § 2255 motion.4 AFFIRMED. 4 Because we conclude that the district court did not err as to trial counsel’s performance, we do not address whether counsel’s performance prejudiced Simpson. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. 11