Court Opinion

ID: 9404851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 16:01:09.845474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.658447
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10792    Document: 57-1     Date Filed: 06/26/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10792
                          ____________________

       HARRISON GARCIA,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21513-PAS
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-10792      Document: 57-1      Date Filed: 06/26/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10792

       PER CURIAM:
               Harrison Garcia appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
       motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In his submis-
       sions to this court, Garcia raises—or purports to raise—a multitude
       of claims. The bulk of Garcia’s appeal alleges that his pre-trial and
       trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in violation of Strick-
       land v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Garcia contends that his
       counsel fell short of the constitutional mark by failing to secure wit-
       nesses, delaying requests for continuances, providing unsound ad-
       vice regarding a mid-trial plea offer, inviting prejudicial comments
       from a witness, declining to challenge evidence of social media
       posts and controlled drug purchases, and neglecting to marshal an
       entrapment defense. Garcia also argues that the cumulative effect
       of these errors undermined the reliability of his trial and warrants
       relief. Finally, Garcia claims that the district court violated his due
       process rights by denying two motions for continuances of suppres-
       sion hearings.
               Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal and with the
       benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district
       court’s meticulously drafted order. Accordingly, we affirm the de-
       nial of Garcia’s § 2255 motion.
              AFFIRMED.