Ricky Giddens v. United States , 579 F. App'x 959 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10353
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 7:12-cv-90125-HL-TQL; 7:10-cr-00028-HL-TQL-1
RICKY GIDDENS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(September 18, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Ricky Giddens, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his motion to
vacate his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Giddens moved to vacate his sentence
as unconstitutional because the district court failed to apply the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010 at his sentencing. The district court dismissed Giddens’s motion as
procedurally barred because he failed to raise his arguments either at sentencing or
on direct appeal. The court also denied Giddens’s request to amend his motion
with a claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not challenging his
sentence at sentencing or on direct appeal. We granted a certificate of appealability
to determine whether the district court erred in dismissing Giddens’s motion as
procedurally barred without addressing his claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. We affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to amend a pleading for an abuse of
discretion. See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). “Leave to
amend a [pleading] is futile when the [pleading] as amended would still be
properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary judgment for the
defendant.” Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must
establish that counsel’s performance was deficient, falling below an objective
standard of reasonableness, and the movant suffered prejudice as a result of the
deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687−88, 104 S. Ct.
2Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 3 of 4
2052, 2064−65 (1984). The standard governing counsel’s performance is
“reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at
2065. We have explained that “the deference afforded an attorney’s decision is
great and the bar for proving a Sixth Amendment violation is high.” Brownlee v.
Haley, 306 F.3d 1043, 1059 (11th Cir. 2002). In the light of the strong presumption
in favor of counsel’s competence, a movant who alleges ineffective assistance of
counsel must establish that “no competent counsel would have taken the action that
his counsel did take.” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1315 (11th Cir.
2000) (en banc). It is well settled that the failure to anticipate a change in the law
will not support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v.
Ardley, 273 F.3d 991, 993 (11th Cir. 2001). The rule applies even if the claim,
based upon anticipated changes in the law, was reasonably available when counsel
failed to raise it. See Pitts v. Cook, 923 F.2d 1568, 1572–74 (11th Cir. 1991).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Giddens’s request to
amend his motion to allege a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Under our
then-controlling precedent, United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir.
2010), at the time of Giddens’s sentencing and direct appeal, he was not entitled to
be sentenced under the lower mandatory minimums provided in the Fair
Sentencing Act. Any failure by counsel to anticipate the change in decisional law
in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), does not support Giddens’s
3
Case: 13-10353 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 4 of 4
claim of ineffective assistance. See Ardley, 273 F.3d at 993. And because counsel
was not ineffective, granting Giddens leave to amend his motion would have been
futile. See Cockrell, 510 F.3d at 1310. The district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying Giddens’s request to amend his motion.
AFFIRMED.
4