Court Opinion

ID: 9498548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:20:11.379545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:53.575087
License: Public Domain

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority’s grant of the writ of habe-as corpus is transparently based on the impermissible holding that the state PCR court’s decision was an unreasonable application of a Supreme Court precedent that post-dated that decision. Although the majority asserts conclusorily that the state PCR court’s failure was in not reasonably applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), it is evident that the majority actually reasons and holds that the state PCR court unreasonably applied Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). In fact, it is as if its opinion were reasoned and written on the mistaken understanding that Flores-Ortega was decided before the state PCR court reached its decision, and then amended so as to state (though not reason) that it rested on Strickland when it was discovered that Flores-Ortega actually post-dated the state PCR court’s decision. Of course, because Flores-Ortega was not decided until after the only state court to consider the merits of Frazer’s claim (the state PCR court) issued its decision,1 it is impermissible under section 2254(d)(1) for the majority to rely upon that opinion to hold that the state unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” As it is apparent that clearly established Supreme Court precedent at the time of the state PCR court decision did not dictate that Frazer be afforded relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I would hold that the state PCR court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent and I would reverse the contrary judgment of the district court.
I.
Both the majority and the concurring opinion attempt to evade section 2254(d)(l)’s requirements by holding that the rule of Flores-Ortega was an old rule of constitutional law under Teague v. *719Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), and thus part of the clearly established law for purposes of section 2254(d)(1) when the state court issued its decision. Ante at 705; ante at 716 (Motz, J., concurring): Neither the majority opinion nor the separate concurrence is even remotely convincing that Flores-Ortega was dictated by prior precedent and thus not a new rule under Teague.
A.
In order to grant Frazer’s habeas petition on the basis of- Flores-Ortega, the majority must overcome two independent bars to relief — that imposed by section 2254(d)(1) and that imposed by Teague. Section 2254(d)(1) bars relief unless the PCR court’s judgment “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Even if Flores-Ortega were clearly established federal law at the time the PCR court rendered its judgment, and even if the PCR court unreasonably applied it, thus overcoming’ the AEDPA bar, Teague — which held that federal courts will not apply new rules of constitutional law retroactively to cases on collateral review — independently prevents granting the writ on the basis of Flores-Ortega because, as explained infra, that case announced a new rule of constitutional law. See Horn v. Banks, 536 U.S. 266, 272, 122 S.Ct. 2147, 153 L.Ed.2d 301 (2002) (per curiam) (“While it is of course a necessary prerequisite to federal habeas relief that a prisoner satisfy the AEDPA standard of review ... none of our post-AEDPA cases have suggested that a writ of habeas corpus should automatically issue if a prisoner satisfies the AEDPA standard, or that AEDPA relieves courts- from the responsibility of addressing properly raised Teague arguments.”).2
Teague would not bar relief on the basis of Flores-Ortega if the rule announced in Flores-Ortega had been an old rule of constitutional law. Old rules of constitutional law are those that were “dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” See Teague, 489 U.S. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060. A rule is not dictated by precedent — and is therefore a new rule of constitutional law — if, prior to its announcement, its existence was “susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.” See Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990). In other words, a rule is an old rule of constitutional law only if all reasonable jurists would have agreed that it existed prior to its announcement.
The majority correctly recognizes that if Flores-Ortega announced a new rule of constitutional law, Teague would bar relief. The majority incorrectly concludes, however, that Flores-Ortega was dictated by pri- or precedent and was therefore an old rule. And it is able to so hold in large part because it does not even attempt to show that all reasonable jurists would have anticipated the outcome of that case. *720Instead of conducting this proper inquiry, the majority merely sets about to show that in Flores-Ortega “the Supreme Court relied exclusively on the principles announced in Strickland and other cases defining the role of counsel in the appellate process,” ante at 705, a task that the majority mistakenly believes establishes that Flores-Ortega was dictated by Strickland and other Supreme Court precedents existing at the time Frazer’s conviction became final and that Flores-Ortega was therefore an old rule. Of course, to establish that the Supreme Court relied exclusively on the principles of prior cases in reaching the rule of Flores-Ortega is not at all to establish that those cases dictated that rule, that is, that all reasonable jurists would have agreed that those precedents led inexorably to Flores-Ortega.
Apart from this erroneous “relied-exclusively-on” test, the majority’s only other analysis of whether Flores-Ortega was dictated by precedent remarkably consists solely of the bald assertion that because the decision to appeal is important, and Strickland stated in dicta that counsel has a duty to consult with the defendant on important decisions, Strickland dictated the rule of Flores-Ortega. This analysis is entirely unconvincing on its own terms and, it should go without saying, does not even remotely approximate the proper Teague inquiry.3
B.
Having improperly conducted and answered the Teague inquiry, the majority then compounds the confusion by importing its erroneous Teague conclusion into its AEDPA analysis, deciding that because Flores-Ortega is an old rule of constitutional law under Teague, “[njeither Teague nor § 2254(d) forecloses an examination of Frazer’s entitlement to habeas relief.” See ante at 706. In so doing, the majority fails completely to recognize that, as the Supreme Court has emphasized, “the AEDPA and Teague inquiries are distinct.” Horn, 536 U.S. at 272, 122 S.Ct. 2147. The Teague new-rule inquiry requires us to ask whether a rule that the petitioner seeks to benefit from was dictated by precedent at the time the petitioner’s conviction became final. Section 2254(d)(1), in contrast, requires us to ask whether the rule that the PCR court allegedly applied unreasonably was clearly established at the time of the PCR court’s decision.
The majority relies on the Supreme Court’s statement in Williams v. Taylor that there is a “slight connection” between *721the phrase “clearly established Federal law” in section 2254(d)(1) and Teague, namely that “whatever would qualify as an old rule under our Teague jurisprudence will constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States’ under § 2254(d)(1).” Ante at 706 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495) (emphasis added by majority). It intends this “connection” to explain (and justify) its focus on Teague, as opposed to a focus on the actual standard of section 2254(d)(1). But to reason in this fashion is to read out of Teague and section 2254 the critically different temporal limitations of these “distinct” inquiries.4
A correctly reasoned opinion would address head-on the relevant question under AEDPA of whether the rule announced in Flores-Ortega was clearly established at the time of the state PCR court’s decision, that is, whether at the time of the state PCR court’s decision all reasonable jurists would have agreed that the rule of Flores-Ortega was already extant. (In contrast, the corresponding, but different, inquiry under Teague is whether at the time the petitioner’s conviction became final all reasonable jurists would have agreed as to the required outcome of Flores-Ortega.). But, as noted above, the majority never asks the crucial question whether, at the time of the state PCR court’s decision, all reasonable jurists would have anticipated Flores-Ortega. Needless to say, as a consequence, the majority’s analysis under AEDPA is demonstrably flawed.
Had the majority undertaken the proper analysis under section 2254, it would have been required to hold, for the reasons explained infra, that a reasonable jurist clearly could have read Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969), and Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999), as consistent with Carey v. Leverette, 605 F.2d 745 (4th Cir. 1979), and as authority for the conclusion that Frazer’s claim was defeated by his failure to request that his attorney appeal.5 Such a jurist could thus have reasonably failed to anticipate the holding of Flores-Ortega, as indeed the state court did in this case.6
*722Despite the protestations of the majority and concurrence that Flores-Ortega follows unavoidably from Strickland and Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 108 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983), neither opinion is able to offer any explanation, much less a plausible one, as to why a reasonable jurist would not have relied directly on Rodriquez and Peguero, which address this precise context. Indeed, the majority does not even as much as cite Peguero and it mentions Rodriquez only in pássing. And the only reference to either in Judge Motz’s concurrence is a brief recognition that both cases are cited in Flores-Ortega.7
Because the outcome of Flores-Ortega was undoubtedly in question prior to the issuance of that case, Flores-Ortega was neither old law nor clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. As a consequence of the fact that Flores-Ortega was not clearly established federal law until the day it was issued, that case cannot be applied to Frazer’s claims — at least not consistent with section 2254(d)(1).
C.
Like the majority, the concurrence attempts to defend reliance upon Flores-Ortega on the grounds that Flores-Ortega is old law and thus was clearly established at the time of the state-court decision. Ante at 715-716 (Motz, J., concurring). However, for its part, the concurrence attempts to redefine entirely the elements of an old rule under Teague. It does so by urging that the category of old rules includes first, all cases which “simply ‘illus-trat[e] the proper application’ of’ prior precedent, ante at 714 (Motz, J., concurring), and second, all later cases that interpret Strickland, ante at 714 (Motz, J., concurring).
In support of its first definition of an old rule, the concurrence invokes the Supreme Court’s statement that Williams v. Taylor could be applied to the petitioner’s habeas claim in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003), even though Williams post-dated the state court’s rejection of Wiggins’ claim, because the Wiggins Court concluded that the Williams Court had “made no new law in resolving Williams’ ineffectiveness claim.” Id. at 522, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (emphasis added). The concurrence characterizes the Court’s application of Williams in Wiggins as a conclusion that the Court “could consider a case issued after the relevant state court decision because its recently decided case simply ‘illustrat[ed] the proper application’ of Strickland.” Ante at 714 (Motz, J., concurring) (emphasis and alteration in majority).
But the Supreme Court does not determine whether a rule is an old rule by deciding that it will “simply illustrate the *723proper application” of an earlier case. If this were the test, virtually everything would be an old rule, because the Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides a case without properly applying an earlier case. Such a broad view of old rules ignores Teague’s focus on the importance of the finality of criminal judgments. Teague, 489 U.S. at 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060.
Instead, the Court has held — and reaffirmed repeatedly — that a rule is new when “the result [it reaches] was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Id. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060. This definition of a new rule is meant to “validate! ] reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions.” O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151, 156, 117 S.Ct. 1969, 138 L.Ed.2d 351 (1997). The focus of the old-rule inquiry is thus decidedly not on whether a case “illustrates the proper application” of or otherwise relies on previously decided cases; the focus of the inquiry is on whether a case applies such prior cases in such a manner that no reasonable jurist could have disagreed about the result of the later-decided case — a far narrower inquiry.
The concurrence’s second justification for characterizing the holding of Flores-Ortega as an old rule is its implicit assertion that Williams holds that virtually all cases interpreting the two-prong Strickland standard set forth old rules. See ante at 714 (Motz, J., concurring)(“Rather, the Court has directed that ‘the Strickland test provides sufficient guidance for resolving virtually all ineffeetive-assistance-of-counsel claims.’ ”)(quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495). But Williams provides no support for such an assertion. Instead, Williams holds only that Strickland itself is clearly established law even though Strickland requires a case-by-case inquiry, and thus that a state court’s application of Strickland could entitle a habeas petitioner to relief if the state court decision toas contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland. Williams, 529 U.S. at 390-91, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The language about Strickland “resolving virtually all ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims,” which the concurrence takes out of context from Williams, provides in full:
The Virginia Supreme Court erred in holding that our decision in Lockhart v. Fretwell [, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993),] modified or in some way supplanted the rule set down in Strickland. It is true that while the Strickland test provides sufficient guidance for resolving virtually all ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, there are situations in' which the overriding focus on fundamental fairness may affect the analysis.
Id. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495. In context, it is clear that this language does not mean, as the concurrence suggests, ante at 714 (Motz, J., concurring), that a case involving ineffective assistance is necessarily an old rule under Strickland because Strickland resolves “virtually all” such claims, but rather that it is only in rare circumstances that a court must have an “overriding focus” on' a different legal test altogether than the one set forth in Strickland, i.e., whether the proceeding is consistent with fundamental fairness. Contrary to Judge Motz’s implication, this statement thus emphatically does not hold that, for every one of the Court’s post-Strickland ineffective assistance cases, no reasonable jurist could have disagreed with the result — as would be required for all such cases to constitute old law under Teague.
Judge Motz, in attempted rejoinder to this obvious point, rejoins not at all. Ante at 714, n. 1. That Strickland resolves the *724vast majority of ineffective assistance claims says nothing whatsoever as to whether a particular application of Strickland constitutes a new rule or not. Indeed, Judge Motz reveals her own misunderstanding of the new-rule inquiry by noting emphatically (as if it were the inquiry) that Strickland “guides” most ineffective assistance claims. Ante at 714, n. 1. Of course, the new-rule inquiry is not whether Strickland “guides” the ineffective assistance analysis, but, rather, whether Strickland dictates the resolution of a particular ineffective assistance claim. Judge Motz attempts to salvage her position by hastily asserting that the Strickland analysis that generally guides ineffective assistance claims actually dictated the result in Flores-Ortega. See ante at 714, n. 1. But this is mere assertion; she does not even attempt to demonstrate that no reasonable jurist would have disagreed with the result in Flores-Ortega.
The Court’s statement in Wiggins that Williams set forth an old rule thus cannot be read as a holding that a case sets forth an old rule whenever it “simply applies” prior precedent or interprets Strickland, as the concurrence would have us believe. Instead, under the Supreme Court’s definition of an old rule, the conclusion in Wiggins that Williams was an old rule must have represented a belief by the Court that it would have been unreasonable for a jurist to fail to recognize that the result in Williams was dictated by precedent. See Teague, 489 U.S. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060. An interpretation of Strickland that was contrary to Williams would thus have failed to qualify as a “reasonable, good-faith interpretation” that Teague recognized as deserving of deference. See O’Dell, 521 U.S. at 156, 117 S.Ct. 1969. This reading of Wiggins is necessary for Wiggins to be consistent with the Court’s holding, both pre— and post-Wiggins, that the relevant law under section 2254(d)(1) is that which is clearly established at the time of the relevant state-court decision. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495; Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 2147, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). By declaring that Williams set forth an old rule, the Supreme Court indicated that all reasonable jurists would have agreed even prior to the issuance of Williams that Williams should be decided the way that it was. Thus, the Court’s application of Williams in Wiggins was not an unexplained departure from the Supreme Court’s repeated explanations of the section 2254(d)(1) standard; rather, it was simply a further application of the Court’s conclusion that a rule of law that is dictated by precedent is clearly established when that precedent is issued, even if that is before the rule of law is explicitly stated. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
D.
Betraying its discomfort with its obvious reliance on Flores-Ortega, the majority begins its opinion with a revealingly abridged statement of its holding, that “Strickland ... and its progeny” were unreasonably applied, ante at 701, and, in like fashion, it prefaces its ultimate analysis of Frazer’s claim with the statement that “the state PCR court’s decision constituted an unreasonable application of Strickland,” ante at 706. It is clear, however, that the majority does not hold (or even believe) that Strickland alone is sufficient or, for that matter, even that Strickland dictated Flores-Ortega. The majority opinion cites Flores-Ortega more than twice as often as it does Strickland, and cites Flores-Ortega almost exclusively in its actual analysis of Frazer’s claim. See, e.g., ante at 706 - 708 (relying, in holding that Frazer’s counsel failed the performance prong, on Frazer-Ortega for the proposition that “[cjounsel’s *725obligation to consult ... is distinct from [his] duty to inform”;) ante at 708-712 (considering “whether Frazer can satisfy the requirements that the Flores-Ortega Court distilled from Strickland ” and proceeding to analyze Frazer’s claim of prejudice under Flores-Ortega’s two-part test); ante at 711 (concluding that counsel had failed to meet “his obligations under Strickland and Flores-Ortega ”); ante at 712 (claiming that.“Frazer need only demonstrate an interest in appealing” in order to “show prejudice under Flores-Ortega ”); ante at 712 (stating that “in light of Strickland and Flores-Ortega, Frazer’s counsel had an obligation to consult with him regarding an appeal”). In fact, the majority virtually admits that Flores-Ortega is essential to its holding when it concludes that “[b]ecause the dissent’s analysis of the merits of Frazer’s claim is predicated on its conclusion that Flores-Ortega does not apply, its analysis is largely irrelevant.” Ante at 712. If Flores-Ortega was not necessary to the majority’s holding, then the analysis based on Supreme Court precedent pre-dating Flores-Ortega that this dissent conducts would not only be relevant, but of course, would be the analysis the majority should be conducting as well.
That the majority does not believe that it can grant relief without relying on Flores-Ortega is further confirmed by the fact that it even raises Teague at all. If the majority actually believed that the PCR court’s judgment was an unreasonable application of Strickland independent of Flores-Ortega, then its analysis of whether Flores-Ortega announced a new rule barred by Teague would be utterly irrelevant because the PCR court’s unreasonable application of Strickland would alone justify issuance of the writ. Strickland was unquestionably clearly established federal law at the time of the PCR court’s decision for purposes of section 2254(d)(1), and it was just as certainly an old rule of constitutional law under Teague at the time Frazer’s conviction became final. It is only if Flores-Ortega is necessary to a conclusion that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law that an analysis of whether Flores-Ortega is a new rule under Teague is apt because, as explained above, in order to grant the writ of habeas corpus on the basis of Flores-Ortega the majority must conclude that that decision is not Teague— barred.
The problem for the majority on this score is that it meets itself coming around. If Flores-Ortega is necessary to a conclusion that the PCR court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, then it follows that Flores-Ortega was not dictated by Strickland — contrary to the majority’s separate conclusion. For if Flores-Ortega were dictated by Strickland, then the state court judgment would have been unreasonable under Strickland, without resort to Flores-Ortega.
The majority understands well that Strickland did not dictate Flores-Ortega, as evident from the myriad of formulations that it invokes in explanation of the relationship between Strickland and Flores-Ortega — variously asserting that Flores-Ortega “crystalizefd],” ante at 704,. “dis-tillled],” ante at 705, 709 “elaborated],” ante at 706, “reinforced,” ante at 707, n. 8, and “synthesized],” ante at 709, Strickland. Many, if not all, of these formulations connote addition to or change from Strickland — a connotation inconsistent with a conclusion that all reasonable jurists would have agreed that the rule of Flores-Ortega existed prior to its announcement.
In the end, for the reasons explained, it is transparent that the majority cannot establish that Strickland dictated Flores-*726Ortega and that it rests its grant of the writ instead on the conclusion that the state PCR court unreasonably applied Flores-Ortega — a precedent that did not even exist at the time that court issued its judgment.
E.
The majority’s reliance upon Flores-Ortega would at least be defensible if the state supreme court’s discretionary denial of certiorari, not the state PCR court’s decision, were the relevant decision for our review under AEDPA. For Flores-Ortega did pre-date that decision. However, the majority correctly acknowledges, as it must, that the state PCR court decision is the relevant state court decision for purposes of section 2254(d). See ante at 706, n. 7.
Under no circumstance can a discretionary denial of certiorari be relevant to the inquiry mandated by section 2254(d). Only the pre-Flores-Ortega opinion of the PCR court, and not the letter denying discretionary review, can be said to have been an “adjudication of the claim that resulted in a decision” within the meaning of section 2254(d).
The South Carolina Supreme Court did not address the merits of Frazer’s claims at all. Rather, the South Carolina Supreme Court entered a letter order on May 30, 2002, stating that Frazer’s “Petition for Writ of Certiorari [was] Denied.” J.A. 259; see also Br. of Appellee at 4 (describing Frazer’s petition for writ of certiorari as being “summarily denied without consideration on the merits ”) (emphasis added). In South Carolina, “the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals does not dismiss or decide the underlying appeal; it simply determines that, as a matter of discretion, [the South Carolina Supreme Court] does not desire to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.” State v. Rucker, 321 S.C. 552, 471 S.E.2d 145, 145 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Austin v. South Carolina, 305 S.C. 453, 409 S.E.2d 395, 396 (1991) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to the South Carolina Supreme Court’s refusal to review the denial of post-conviction relief).
The language of section 2254, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that language, and plain common sense all preclude the conclusion that such a discretionary denial should be examined by a federal habeas court. Section 2254(d) provides, in relevant part, that
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has defined the phrase “clearly established Federal law” as including “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Yarborough, 124 S.Ct. at 2147 (emphasis added)(quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495). In light of the statutory language, it is obvious that only the state PCR court’s adjudication, and not the South Carolina Supreme Court’s letter denying discretionary review, can constitute the “relevant state-court decision” under Yarborough. The only plausible reading of section 2254 is that “the adjudication of the claim” refers to the “adjudication] on the merits” that must be present for the statute to be implicated. Because the *727state supreme court’s letter denying review was neither an “adjudication” nor “on the merits,” it cannot be the relevant adjudication for consideration under the statute. The final “adjudication on the merits” was performed by the state PCR court, and it is only this adjudication that we must examine to determine whether it “resulted in a decision” that is not entitled to deference.
In fact, we have previously taken precisely this approach. In Bacon v. Lee, 225 F.3d 470 (4th Cir.2000), the state MAR court summarily denied a habeas petitioner’s claims. Id. at 475. The North Carolina Supreme Court then denied certiora-ri. Id. In setting forth our standard of review, we did not mention the denial of certiorari, instead applying section 2254(d)(1) only to the decision of the MAR court. Id. at 478.
Nor could we reasonably adopt any other interpretation of the statute. There are only two possible means by which one could reach the conclusion that the denial of discretionary review is an “adjudication on the merits” — and neither is supportable. On the one hand, one might treat the denial of discretionary review as just what it is — a discretionary decision to deny further review — and then inquire whether the state court’s failure to act was an unreasonable application of federal law. But with such treatment, there would never be any grounds for relief to a petitioner under the deferential standards of section 2254(d)(1), because the exercise of effectively unlimited discretion simply to decline to review a particular case, with no indication that the discretion was exercised for any reason barred by federal law, can never be “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of’ federal law — for the simple reason that it does not purport to apply federal law at all. Just as the United States Supreme Court itself refuses to review the vast majority of cases brought before it in order to keep its business “within manageable proportions,” so also state supreme courts are entitled to circumscribe their review in a purely discretionary fashion. See Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 491, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953)(opinion of Frankfurter, J.); Felton v. Barnett, 912 F.2d 92, 95 (4th Cir.1990). Adopting the view that the denial of certio-rari is the relevant state-court decision for our review would mean that, absent exceptional circumstances (as, for example, if the state court were shown to exercise its discretion in an unconstitutional manner), anytime the state’s highest court denied discretionary review, the petitioner would be ineligible for relief in federal court. Thus, if faithfully applied, this interpretation would entirely insulate from review many decisions of the state courts; such a result cannot be correct.
Alternatively, one could instead mischar-acterize the state court’s denial of discretionary review as a summary affirmance that adopted and ratified the reasoning of the lower court. See McHone v. Polk, 392 F.3d 691, 704 n. 5 (4th Cir.2004)(holding that the state supreme court’s summary adjudication of habeas petitioner’s claims “left intact the reasoning of the [lower] court, and that the state is accordingly entitled to the benefit of the more thorough treatment of petitioner’s Strickland claims in that court”). Such disregard of the state court’s characterization of its own order, far from enforcing the principle of comity that AEDPA respects, instead undermines that principle by giving no effect to the South Carolina Supreme Court’s holdings respecting the import of a denial of discretionary review. That a petitioner is required to seek discretionary review in the state’s highest court in order to exhaust his state remedies serves the interests of comity because it gives the state’s highest court the opportunity, if it so de*728sires, to reconsider the intermediate appellate court’s disposition of the claim. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) (“Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the, federal courts, we conclude that state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). This requirement precludes a petitioner from effectively circumventing the state court in favor of a federal forum. In contrast, an interpretation treating a discretionary denial of certiorari as the “relevant state-court decision” would frustrate comity by disregarding the state’s decision not to grant discretionary review, and thus, like a petitioner who fails to seek discretionary review, would fail utterly to respect the state court’s right of “selectively choosing to hear only those cases which seem to it to come within its primary purposes and functions.” See Moffitt v. Boss, 483 F.2d 650, 653 (4th Cir.1973) (emphasis added). In so doing, it effectively forces state supreme courts to grant review and decide the claim on the merits in any case where a relevant intervening Supreme Court decision has been decided, or face having the reasonable decisions of its lower courts overturned by the federal habeas courts. This is just the sort of intrusion onto state-court systems in violation of comity that AEDPA was designed to prevent.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), and Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991), which discussed the relevance of the actions of the last state court involved in a petitioner’s habeas proceedings, confirm that a discretionary decision by a state supreme court is not the last state court judgment for the purposes of federal habeas review.
In Coleman, the Supreme Court directed federal habeas courts to look to “the decision of the last state court to which the petitioner presented his federal claims” to determine' whether a state court decision rests on federal law, rather than on an independent and adequate state ground. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732-35, 111 S.Ct. 2546. This directive to look to the decision of the “last state court” merely reiterated the Court’s previous holding in Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). See id. at 263, 109 S.Ct. 1038 (“[Procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ‘clearly and expressly’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.”)(emphasis added). Our circuit has held that “[t]he denial of the petition for certiorari was not ... the last state court judgment” for purposes of applying Harris, because “the denial of such a writ is not a judgment but is simply a refusal to hear the appeal.” Felton, 912 F.2d at 94; see also Smith v. Dixon, 14 F.3d 956, 964 n. 4 (4th Cir.1994) (same).8 And Felton is plainly correct; the state, court’s unexplained denial of discretionary review cannot reasonably be read to impart any view on whether an adequate and independent state ground bars federal court review. See Goodwin v. Collins, 910 F.2d 185, 187 (5th Cir.1990). Felton also virtually compels the directly analogous rule that a *729denial of discretionary review cannot reasonably be said to represent a judgment by the state court that no recent Supreme Court precedent requires relief.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the federal courts are “in accord” with Felton’s holding that a discretionary denial of certiorari does not constitute the last state court judgment for purposes of determining the applicability of a state procedural bar. Ylst, 501 U.S. at 802 n. 2, 111 S.Ct. 2590 (citing Goodwin, 910 F.2d at 187 (“[T]he Hams court’s reference to ‘the last state court rendering a judgment in the case’ ” references the “state intermediate appellate court [that] renders a decision,” not “the highest state court [that] simply denies discretionary review.”); and Prihoda v. McCaughtry, 910 F.2d 1379, 1383 (7th Cir.l990)(“Unexplained affirmances or denials of discretionary review do not retract a state-law basis of decision already given.”)); see also McBee v. Abramajtys, 929 F.2d 264, 267 (6th Cir.1991). Furthermore, Ylst cannot be interpreted to have concluded that a discretionary denial of certiorari adopts the reasoning of the last explained decision below, because the Court assumed that the California Supreme Court lacked “any discretion not to entertain habeas corpus petitions.” Ylst, 501 U.S. at 802 n. 2, 111 S.Ct. 2590.
Because the only relevant state-court decision is the state PCR court’s decision, and because Flores-Ortega was not decided at the time of the PCR court’s decision, the majority’s reliance on Flores-Ortega flouts the clear statutory mandate of section 2254(d). Flores-Ortega is simply irrelevant to the question presented to us.
II.
Unable to rely upon Flores-Ortega, the majority’s review of the merits of Frazer’s case violates the strict limits AEDPA places on our review of state court judgments. Rather than deferring to the factual conclusions of the state court, the majority accepts as true Frazer’s representations to the state PCR court, even though they were rejected by that court. The majority then utterly fails to address the two most relevant Supreme Court cases — or indeed, to address any Supreme Court case other than Flores-Ortega at any length — in reaching its erroneous conclusion that the state holdings both with respect to the performance and the prejudice prongs of Strickland were unreasonable.
A.
The majority disregards the stringent limitations AEDPA places on the ability of the federal courts to second-guess the factual conclusions of state habeas courts. Under AEDPA, “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,” and “[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The state PCR court, which, unlike the district court and the majority, had the benefit of a full evidentiary hearing in which both Frazer and his counsel testified, held that “[t]here [is] nothing in the record or the testimony at this hearing to indicate that the Applicant conveyed to his trial attorney a desire to appeal until it was too late.” J.A. 209-10. Despite this conclusion, both the majority and the district court conclude that Frazer expressed at least an interest in appealing. Ante at 709, 712; J.A. 114-15. But neither the majority nor the district court even purports to hold that Frazer has met his burden of disputing the state court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence, or indeed even addresses the impact of the *730state court’s factual finding on this case. Nor could they reasonably conclude that Frazer has met his burden; the state court expressly refused to credit Frazer’s testimony at points during the hearing, J.A. 208, and Frazer’s was the only testimony that supported the conclusion that his trial counsel ever agreed to file an appeal. J.A. 177-78. In fact, Frazer’s trial counsel expressly denied, that he and Frazer, had ever talked about appealing the sentence, and instead indicated only that he was asked to “see[] about having time run together,” and that he did so by making an oral motion for reconsideration to the trial court. J.A. 189.
B.
The state PCR court was thus faced only with evaluating the claim that Frazer’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to appeal after Frazer, who had unquestionably been advised of his right to appeal by the plea affidavit, J.A. 143, nonetheless failed to request that his counsel appeal. Because the state court correctly identified Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), as the law governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we may only grant relief if the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of Strickland and other clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
It is clear that the state court’s conclusion that Frazer was not entitled to relief on such facts was an eminently reasonable application of the relevant Supreme Court law, i.e., that Supreme Court law existing in September 1999. Under Strickland, “judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Here, Frazer pled guilty, which, as the majority recognizes, at least. waives all “nonjurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of violation of constitutional rights prior to the plea.” Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975); ante at 709-710. The limited scope of appealable issues of course renders defendants who plead guilty less likely to prevail on appeal and thus presumably less likely to desire an appeal. Moreover, as discussed above, Frazer did not ask his counsel to seek an appeal. In these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for counsel to fail to do so. See Carey v. Leverette, 605 F.2d 745, 746 (4th Cir.1979) (holding that there is generally “no constitutional requirement that defendants must always be informed of their right to appeal following a guilty plea.”).
Supreme Court precedent specific to the context of a petitioner’s allegation that he was wrongfully denied an appeal also requires. the conclusion that it would not have been unreasonable for a state court pre-Flores-Ortega to determine that Frazer’s failure to request an appeal, when he knew of his right to appeal, was disposi-tive. In Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 329, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969), the Supreme Court held that a client who requests that his lawyer file an appeal and whose lawyer fails to do so is entitled to relief in the form of a belated appeal, even if he is unable to disclose what claims he would have raised or demonstrate a likelihood of success on those claims. See id. at 329, 89 S.Ct. 1715; see also Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029.
The importance of the client’s request for an appeal to the holding in Rodriquez was confirmed in Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999). In Peguero, the habe-as petitioner alleged that he was entitled to relief because his counsel had failed to file a notice of appeal pursuant to his request and because the district court had *731failed to inform him of his right to appeal, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(2). Id. at 25, 119 S.Ct. 961. The district court made factual findings that the court had failed to notify Peguero of his right to appeal, but that Peguero had already been aware of his right to appeal, and that Peguero had told his trial counsel that he did not wish to appeal. Id. The Supreme Court reviewed only Peguero’s claim under Rule 32(a)(2) and, because of Peguero’s awareness of his right to appeal, refused to infer prejudice from the trial court’s failure to inform Peguero of that right. Id. at 28, 119 S.Ct. 961. The Court concluded that Rodriquez, which had relied in part on the trial court’s failure to inform Rodriquez of his right to appeal, was “not implicated here because of the District Court’s factual finding that petitioner did not request an appeal.” Id.
Although Peguero did not address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a pre-Flores-Ortega court could reasonably have concluded that Peguero indicated that petitioner’s express request for an appeal was crucial to the holding in Rodriquez and thus that Rodriquez should not be extended to circumstances where petitioner failed to request an appeal. Frazer, as noted above and contrary to the majority’s assumption, made no such request. Considering Rodriquez and Peguero alone, then, the state court could reasonably have concluded that a defendant must at least either request an appeal or be unaware of his right to appeal before counsel has an obligation to pursue an appeal. Such a conclusion is particularly reasonable in light of the deferential review of counsel’s performance required by Strickland and this court’s conclusion in Carey that no consultation regarding an appeal after a guilty plea is necessary, absent extraordinary circumstances.
The majority fails to analyze — or even cite- — Peguero, and it mentions Rodriquez only in passing. Its judgment rests almost entirely on its conclusion that the state court’s decision, as “made abundantly clear by Flores-Ortega,” was “objectively unreasonable in light of the dictates of Strickland”', according to the majority, the state court “unreasonably applied Strickland and its progeny,” by which it of course means Flores-Ortega. Ante at 708. That the majority’s holding necessarily rests on Flores-Ortega is confirmed by its extensive Teague analysis, an analysis in which it engages solely to justify its ultimate reliance on Flores-Ortega. Besides this ill-conceived reliance on Flores-Ortega, the majority’s discussion of the merits of Frazer’s case makes only a fleeting reference to relevant Supreme Court law, in the form of its conclusion that Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983), and Strickland render the PCR court’s reliance on our decision in Carey v. Leverette unreasonable.9 Ante at 709. When examined at greater length, however, it is clear that neither of these cases renders the state’s decision an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
As the majority notes, the Court in Barnes recognizes that “the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to ... take an appeal.” Barnes, 463 U.S. at 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308. As should be abundantly clear, however, Frazer has in no sense been denied his authority to make a decision regarding his appeal. Frazer was aware that he had a right to appeal his guilty plea and sentence *732and that he was required to do so within ten days of sentencing, but he neither filed a notice of appeal nor requested that his counsel do so. J.A. 143.
Nor does Strickland’s general statement that counsel has a duty “to consult with the defendant on important decisions” suffice to render the state court’s decision unreasonable. As an initial matter, that statement is dicta, as the case before the Supreme Court in Strickland did not pose the question of counsel’s duty to consult with the defendant regarding an appeal (or indeed regarding any important decision). As noted above, only holdings of the Supreme Court, not dicta, constitute part of the “clearly established Federal law”' for purposes of section 2254(d)(1).10 Yarborough, 124 S.Ct. at 2147. In any event, the state court has more leeway in determining the application of a more general rule than the application of a very specific rule. Id. at 2149. Strickland emphasizes that “[n]o particular set of detailed rules for counsel’s conduct” is appropriate, but rather that courts must consider “whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” 466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The state court could reasonably conclude that counsel’s duty to consult regarding whether petitioner should file an appeal does not arise until the petitioner indicates an interest in appealing. This is all the more true where, as here, the petitioner’s plea of guilty limits the scope of issues available for appeal, and the only grounds he expressed to his lawyer for dissatisfaction depend on his unsupported allegation that the trial judge might have been prejudiced against him. See Garrett v. State, 320 S.C. 353, 465 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1995) (holding that a sentence is not excessive “if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against [the defendant]”).
The state PCR court’s decision that Frazer’s counsel performed reasonably was thus not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, and the majority’s conclusion to the contrary is a clear misapplication of the deferential standards of AEDPA review.
C.
Similarly, the state court reasonably concluded that Frazer had failed to prove that any “deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In Rodriquez, the Court proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had requested that his counsel file an appeal, which “objectively indicated his intent to appeal,” and thus demonstrated prejudice. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 485, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (citing Rodriquez, 395 U.S. at 328, 89 S.Ct. 1715). Here, in contrast, the facts are more akin to Peguero, where the Court concluded that petitioner’s awareness of his right to appeal defeated the claim that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to inform him of that right. Peguero, 526 U.S. at 28-29, 119 S.Ct. 961. A court reconciling Peguero and Rodriquez could reasonably conclude that a petitioner does not suffer prejudice if he is not consulted regarding his wishes with respect to an appeal, so long as he is *733aware of his right to appeal and does not request assistance from his lawyer in exercising that right.
The mere fact that the Flores-Ortega Court notes that its prejudice standard “breaks no new ground” does not compel the contrary conclusion. Insofar as Flores-Ortega reaffirms the holding that the petitioner is not required to show that his appeal would have been successful, it indeed was clearly established law prior to Flores-Ortega.11 Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1029; Rodriquez, 395 U.S. at 328, 89 S.Ct. 1715. However, prior to Flores-Ortega, it would have been reasonable to read Peguero to indicate that a petitioner who alleged that he was prejudiced because he was denied an appeal was required to demonstrate that he would have appealed, and that, as a matter of law, a petitioner who knew of his right to appeal but did not request an appeal could not make this showing.12 To the extent that the Flores-Ortega Court held that a showing of “nonfrivolous grounds for appeal” can demonstrate prejudice even if a petitioner did not request an appeal, that rule was simply not clearly established prior to Flores-Ortega.
CONCLUSION
The majority can grant the writ of habe-as corpus in this case only by grounding its conclusion that the state acted unreasonably on a Supreme Court precedent decided after the relevant state court judgment was entered and by failing to defer to either the factual or legal conclusions of the appropriate state court. I dissent. I would reverse the decision of the district court and remand for dismissal of Frazer’s petition.

. The state PCR court rendered its decision dismissing Frazer’s claims on September 17, 1999, J.A. 215, and the Supreme Court decided Plores-Ortega on February 23, 2000. The state supreme court denied certiorari on May 30, 2002. J.A. 259.

. For an example of how Teague can independently bar habeas relief even when AEDPA is not a bar, assume the following sequence of events: First, the petitioner's conviction becomes final. Second, the Supreme Court issues a case announcing a new rule of constitutional law. Third, the PCR court unreasonably applies that newly announced rule to the petitioner’s case.' In such a case, section 2254(d)(1) would not bar relief — the new rule of constitutional law was clearly established at the time of the PCR court’s decision and was unreasonably applied. Teague, however, would prevent the federal habeas court from issuing the writ on the basis of the newly announced rule because the petitioner's conviction became final before the new rule was announced.

. In one last attempt to defend its holding that Flores-Ortega was an old rule, the majority notes that Flores-Ortega was decided by the Supreme Court on collateral review. From this fact, the majority infers, based on Teague, that the Supreme Court must have concluded that the rule set forth in Flores-Ortega was an old rule. See ante at 705. This is a fair debating point, but no more than that, and certainly not one upon which an appellate court would rely (as, in fairness to the majority, it appears to understand).
In any event, it is far more likely, if not probable, that the Court instead considered the Teague issue waived, as the state did not raise Teague in its brief on the merits before the Court. If the Court did not consider the argument waived for this reason, it most certainly never gave a moment's thought to whether it was announcing a new rule. But if any inference is to be drawn from the Court's complete silence, it is the opposite one from that drawn by the majority, given that the Court's test for determining whether a rule is new plainly dictates that the rule announced in Flores-Ortega is new, not old, contrary to the majority's unpersuasive contention. In the absence of any statement by the Court as to the matter, as in Flores-Ortega, the default rule that new rules will not be announced on habeas would almost certainly yield to the actual test for determining whether a rule is or is not new.

. Because of the temporal difference between the two inquiries, it is clear that not everything that qualifies as clearly established federal law under AEDPA qualifies as an old rule under Teague. For example, if Flores-Ortega had been announced between the time Frazer's conviction became final and the date of the PCR court’s judgment, it would have been clearly established federal law for purposes of AEDPA review but a new rule under Teague. I believe that it is likewise clear that not everything that is an old rule under Teague is clearly established for purposes of AEDPA. But even accepting the Supreme Court's contrary observation in Williams v. Taylor, such does nothing to save the majority's bootstrapped AEDPA analysis given the flaws in its Teague analysis detailed above. Because the majority did not, and cannot, properly show that Flores-Ortega was an old rule of constitutional law, the Williams bootstrap is unavailable.

. The concurrence contends that Carey is inconsistent with Strickland because it imposes a bright line rule. But even the concurrence must recognize that what Carey establishes is really a presumption, not a per se rule. Ante at 717 (Motz, J., concurring) {“Carey holds that in most cases (i.e. ‘absent extraordinary circumstances') an attorney need not ...” (emphasis added)). And the concurrence cannot contend that a mere presumption, even if it establishes bright lines, is inconsistent with Strickland, as it also contends that the rule in Flores-Ortega, which is itself a presumption, is compelled by Strickland. Ante at 717 (Motz, J., concurring) (admitting implicitly that the rule in Flores-Ortega is also a presumption because it applies only "in the vast majority of cases”).

. That we applied Flores-Ortega in Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892 (4th Cir.2000) does not imply that we held that a reasonable jurist *722pre-Flores-Ortega would have been required to anticipate Flores-Ortega. In Hudson, we indeed applied Flores-Ortega to Hudson's claims, even though the state court had denied post-conviction relief before Flores-Ortega was issued. See id. at 895-97. However, the question of whether AEDPA barred relief because Flores-Ortega was not a part of the clearly established federal law was not presented to the court in that case, because the state court had dismissed Hudson's claims on procedural grounds, not on the merits. We thus reviewed the claims de novo, rather than in accordance with AEDPA’s restrictive standard of review. Id. at 895. We did not raise Teague sua sponte in Hudson, and thus also reached no holding that Flores-Ortega could be applied consistent with Teague.

. That the Supreme Court did not suggest that Rodriquez or Peguero was inconsistent with Flores-Ortega of course carries no corresponding implication that a reasonable jurist reading those cases and Strickland would have necessarily recognized that the outcome of Flores-Ortega was the only way to reconcile the two lines of authority.

. Although Felton and Smith interpret a denial of a petition for certiorari by the North Carolina Supreme Court, rather than the South Carolina Supreme Court, the South Carolina Supreme Court's holding that its denials of certiorari are not judgments on the merits of the case brings it within the reach of the rule in Felton and Smith.

. The majority's almost-exclusive focus on Flores-Ortega confirms that the majority is aware that only Flores-Ortega provides a rule of law that can even arguably afford Frazer relief. See supra at 13 (cataloging the majority's critical reliance on Flores-Ortega).

. The concurrence is obviously aware of the distinction between the holding of a case and dicta, see ante at 713 (Motz, J., concurring), but fails to give it any application, reasoning that the PCR court unreasonably applied Strickland because "Strickland makes clear that to be constitutionally effective, counsel must 'consult with the defendant on important decisions ante at 717 (Motz, J., concurring). Whether a particular rule is "clearly” set forth in dicta or only arguably set forth in dicta is irrelevant for AEDPA purposes, given that the Supreme Court has made clear that no dicta is a part of the clearly established law under section 2254(d).

. The concurrence's recognition that Strickland held that "prejudice is presumed” when counsel is denied altogether at a critical stage, ante at 715 (Motz, J., concurring), is thus correct. But it begs the more important question of whether counsel was denied altogether for an appeal or whether the petitioner simply failed to seek the assistance of counsel for an appeal; it is this question that Flores-Ortega provides a framework to answer.

. Justice O'Connor’s concurrence in Pegue-ro could, pr e-Flores-Ortega, have reasonably been read to support this conclusion. She distinguished between the inability to demonstrate that one would have appealed, which defeats prejudice, and the inability to demonstrate that one's appeal would have been successful, which does not defeat prejudice. Peguero, 526 U.S. at 30, 119 S.Ct. 961 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Justice O’Con-nor agreed with the majority that Peguero’s knowledge of his right to appeal and failure to request an appeal placed him in the first category and thus that he could not demonstrate prejudice. She then noted her belief that petitioners in the second category who alleged trial court error could demonstrate prejudice, and that this view was consistent with the Court’s treatment of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. (citing Rodriquez, 395 U.S. at 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715). Justice O’Connor's opinion thus is consistent with a reasonable belief that, regardless of whether a petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel or a violation of Rule 32(a)(2), pr e-Flores-Ortega law barred relief to any petitioner who could not demonstrate that he would have appealed because, like Peguero, he knew of his right to appeal but never requested an appeal, but did not bar relief to any petitioner simply because he could not demonstrate that his appeal would have been successful.