Court Opinion

ID: 9367901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 15:00:43.955032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.489427
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13575    Document: 43-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13575
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DONATUS O. MBANEFO,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket Nos. 7:20-cv-00108-HL-TQL,
                           7:16-cr-00002-HL-TQL-6
USCA11 Case: 21-13575       Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023      Page: 2 of 9

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   21-13575

                             ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Dr. Donatus Mbanefo claims that his trial counsel was
       ineffective, forcing him not to testify at his criminal trial and failing
       to introduce certain evidence. Because he has not satisfied the
       Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm.
                                          I.
              This is Dr. Donatus Mbanefo’s third appeal stemming from
       his conviction. After a jury trial, he was convicted of conspiracy to
       distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and
       two substantive counts of unlawful dispensation of a controlled
       substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2). When
       Dr. Mbanefo challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury
       instructions, and the court’s drug quantity findings, this Court
       affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Bacon, 809
       F. App’x. 757 (11th Cir. 2020). We also affirmed the district court’s
       denial of his motion for a new trial. United States v. Mbanefo, No.
       21-13693, 2022 WL 2983856 (11th Cir. July 28, 2022). Against the
       backdrop of those two decisions, we give limited additional
       background.
              In this appeal, we review the court’s denial of Dr. Mbanefo’s
       28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In the motion, he describes ten grounds
       for ineffective assistance of counsel, all of which the magistrate
USCA11 Case: 21-13575      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       21-13575                Opinion of the Court                         3

       judge below rejected without holding an evidentiary hearing. The
       court then adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that
       the motion be denied. When Dr. Mbanefo appealed, we granted a
       certificate of appealability as to two of his grounds for relief.
               For the first ground, Dr. Mbanefo alleges that his attorney
       forced him into not testifying. He claims that in the lead-up to trial,
       he and his attorney planned for him to testify and met in person
       twice to discuss trial strategy. On the morning of his planned
       testimony, Dr. Mbanefo says he met his attorney at the courthouse
       to prepare for the examination. To his surprise, his attorney had
       organized no questions for the examination and told Dr. Mbanefo
       not to take the stand. After a “heated, ugly argument,” Dr.
       Mbanefo claims, his counsel threatened to withdraw if he decided
       to testify and told him he would have to proceed pro se.
              This is why, Dr. Mbanefo says, he told the court he did not
       wish to testify. In support of this story, he produced an email
       exchange with his counsel dated two days before the government
       rested its case. In the messages, Dr. Mbanefo’s counsel advised him
       that he needed “to be prepared to explain, both on direct and on
       cross” how his medical treatment complied with the pain
       medication regulations. Dr. Mbanefo argues that this shows an
       abrupt shift in trial strategy and supports that a threat was made.
             The court was unconvinced. The magistrate judge decided
       that Dr. Mbanefo had provided only “unsupported allegations” to
       support his claims, allegations that “directly contradict his
       statements” at trial. Moreover, Dr. Mbanefo had not shown, the
USCA11 Case: 21-13575      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13575

       court reasoned, that the result of the proceeding would have been
       different if he had testified, so his counsel’s actions could not have
       caused any harm.
              For the second ground, Dr. Mbanefo claims that his attorney
       withheld exculpatory evidence. He lists six documents that he said
       should have been presented at trial. This evidence includes emails
       that Dr. Mbanefo says show that he was deceived and pressured by
       the owners of the pain clinic where he worked; an airline
       reservation showing that he extended his trip to Africa to the
       detriment of the clinic; and an email from the Georgia Composite
       Medical Board requesting that he attend a voluntary interview as
       part of an investigation into his prescribing practices. For this
       ground, the magistrate judge concluded that counsel’s choice not
       to introduce this evidence could be considered “sound trial
       strategy” and therefore could not be ineffective assistance.
                                        II.
              In considering a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, we
       review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo.
       McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2011). We
       review the decision not to grant an evidentiary hearing in a § 2255
       proceeding for abuse of discretion. Winthrop-Redin v. United
       States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014). Because Dr. Mbanefo
       proceeds pro se, we will liberally construe his filings. Id.
                                        III.
USCA11 Case: 21-13575     Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 5 of 9

       21-13575               Opinion of the Court                        5

              Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may move to
       vacate his sentence on the ground that it “was imposed in violation
       of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
       § 2255(a). When evaluating such a motion, the court should hold
       a hearing unless “the motion and the files and records of the case
       conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” Id.
       § 2255(b). This means that a prisoner is entitled to a hearing if he
       “alleges facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Winthrop-
       Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216 (quotation omitted). But the court “need
       not hold a hearing if the allegations are patently frivolous, based
       upon unsupported generalizations, or affirmatively contradicted
       by the record.” Id. (quotation omitted).
              Both of Dr. Mbanefo’s grounds for relief require a Strickland
       test for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v.
       Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). For the first ground, Dr.
       Mbanefo alleges that his attorney coerced him not to testify; thus,
       Strickland is the proper framework. Nichols v. Butler, 953 F.2d
       1550, 1552 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). The same is true for the
       second ground, which involves an attorney’s alleged failure to
       introduce evidence. See Kelley v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr., 377
       F.3d 1317, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004).
             A Strickland claim has two components: deficiency and
       prejudice. 466 U.S. at 687. An attorney is deficient if his
       representation “fell below an objective standard of
       reasonableness.” Id. at 688. Prejudice results when “there is a
       reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
USCA11 Case: 21-13575     Document: 43-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court               21-13575

       the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.
       To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, a claimant must
       show both deficiency and prejudice. See id. at 687.
              Neither of Dr. Mbanefo’s claims pass muster under
       Strickland.
                                       A.
              For his first ground—that he was allegedly forced not to
       testify—counsel’s performance was not deficient. Of course, the
       “testimony of a criminal defendant at his own trial is unique and
       inherently significant.” Nichols, 953 F.2d at 1553. As a result, an
       attorney’s performance can be deficient if he threatens withdrawal
       to force a client not to testify. Id. But although Dr. Mbanefo has
       presented a detailed story to that effect, his allegations are
       contradicted by the record, and so we agree with the district court
       that no evidentiary hearing was required. See Winthrop-Redin,
       767 F.3d at 1216.
              The record reveals a rigorous inquiry into whether Dr.
       Mbanefo wished to testify. The court first explained in detail a
       defendant’s testimony rights and confirmed that Dr. Mbanefo
       understood. Then it asked whether he had discussed his rights with
       his attorney, which he affirmed. The court emphasized that only
       Dr. Mbanefo could make the decision whether to testify and that
       his lawyer “can’t make it for you.” In addition, Dr. Mbanefo’s
       counsel had already—on the record—told the court that he had
       explained these rights to Dr. Mbanefo, including that the decision
USCA11 Case: 21-13575        Document: 43-1       Date Filed: 02/02/2023        Page: 7 of 9

       21-13575                  Opinion of the Court                             7

       is “his alone to make” and that “he has decided that he is not going
       to testify.” (emphasis added). This contradicts Dr. Mbanefo’s
       claims.
              Even if counsel were deficient, however, Dr. Mbanefo has
       not shown the required prejudice. None of his proposed
       testimony, even if true, creates a “reasonable probability” that the
       outcome of the trial would have been different. He says that he
       would have testified that he had been deceived and threatened by
       the owners of the clinic and had expressed concerns to a Drug
       Enforcement Administration investigator. But the jury had already
       heard the same or substantially similar evidence. He also describes
       how he extended his trip to Africa, which caused havoc at the
       understaffed clinic. But this allegation does not negate any of the
       elements of his crimes as charged to the jury.
               Finally, he says he would have testified that he had “acted
       responsibly within the bounds of medically accepted procedure”
       while consulting at the clinic. This allegation, if true, would strike
       at the heart of the convictions. Yet it is no more than an
       unsupported generalization, and as such required no further
       development through an evidentiary hearing. See Winthrop-
       Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216. Dr. Mbanefo never explained to the
       district court why his prescribing practices were medically
       legitimate. 1 Even if he had, he could not show prejudice: any

       1On appeal, Dr. Mbanefo included an explanation, but because it was not
       before the district court, we cannot consider it. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw.
USCA11 Case: 21-13575        Document: 43-1         Date Filed: 02/02/2023        Page: 8 of 9

       8                         Opinion of the Court                      21-13575

       proposed testimony about medical legitimacy inspires no
       reasonable probability of a different outcome in the face of the
       overwhelming evidence underpinning Dr. Mbanefo’s convictions.
       Cf. Bacon, 809 F. App’x. at 758 n.1, 759.
              In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
       declining to hold an evidentiary hearing about Dr. Mbanefo’s
       decision not to testify, and because he cannot show deficiency or
       prejudice, this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails.
                                             B.
              Dr. Mbanefo also claims that his attorney failed to introduce
       exculpatory evidence, but he has not shown that his attorney’s
       performance was deficient in this regard. “Judicial scrutiny of
       counsel’s performance must be highly deferential” and a “strong
       presumption” exists that counsel’s conduct is professionally
       reasonable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. A court cannot judge an
       attorney deficient if his approach “might be considered sound trial
       strategy.” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir.
       2000) (quotation omitted).
               Just so here. Dr. Mbanefo again points to documents that
       he says show he was deceived and pressured by the owners of the
       clinic, expressed concerns about the clinic, and extended his trip to
       Africa. It is not clear from the record whether Dr. Mbanefo’s

       Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). The same goes for some of
       the evidence that Dr. Mbanefo claims, for the first time on appeal, should have
       been introduced by his attorney.
USCA11 Case: 21-13575      Document: 43-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 9 of 9

       21-13575               Opinion of the Court                         9

       counsel knew about this evidence. But even assuming that he did,
       and chose not to introduce it, this choice could be sound trial
       strategy. An attorney could reasonably determine that duplicative
       arguments and evidence were unnecessary or would be confusing
       to the jury. After all, counsel “must be permitted to weed out some
       arguments to stress others and advocate effectively.” Haliburton
       v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr., 342 F.3d 1233, 1244 (11th Cir. 2003).
              The same holds for the email from the Georgia Composite
       Medical Board. The email describes an investigation into a
       complaint or malpractice action against Dr. Mbanefo. On its face,
       the email is not exculpatory—quite the opposite. The existence of
       an independent investigation by a state agency could raise a red flag
       for a jury. Dr. Mbanefo claims that the Board did not find him
       “wanting or sanction him.” Even if true, an attorney could
       reasonably believe that without documentary evidence to support
       this exoneration, it was sound trial strategy to avoid the Board
       investigation altogether.
                                  *      *      *
            For these reasons, the district court did not err in denying
       Dr. Mbanefo’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We
       AFFIRM.