US v. Shahiee Flower

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00558-MBS-2,1:13-cv-00866-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court. [999666032]. Mailed to: Shahiee Flowers. [14-7786]

Appeal: 14-7786

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAHIEE JERMAINE FLOWERS, a/k/a Munchie,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00558-MBS-2; 1:13-cv-00866-MBS)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahiee Jermaine Flowers, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, John
David Rowell, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7786

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shahiee Jermaine Flowers appeals from the denial of his 28
U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

motion.

We

previously

granted

a

certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Flowers
received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel
failed to object to the district court’s unrecorded excusal of a
juror

outside

of

Flowers’

presence.

After

receiving

and

reviewing additional briefing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment denying relief. *
To

succeed

on

his

ineffective

assistance

claim,

Flowers

must show that: (1) counsel’s failure to object fell below an
objective

standard

deficient

performance

Washington,
recently
arising

of

466

U.S.

addressed
from

a

was
668,

the

trial

reasonableness,

and

prejudicial.
687

standard

court’s

exclusion

counsel’s

See

Strickland

The

(1984).
for

(2)

Supreme

establishing
of

the

v.

Court

prejudice

defendant

and

counsel from a proceeding involving the composition of the jury.
See Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (analyzing whether
§ 2254 petitioner suffered “actual prejudice” from trial court’s
exclusion of defense counsel from proceeding under Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)).

Under Ayala, a defendant suffers

*

We denied a certificate of appealability with respect to
Flowers’ claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
not requesting a paid-informant instruction.

2

Appeal: 14-7786

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

actual prejudice from the exclusion of counsel from a proceeding
involving the composition of the jury if counsel’s presence at
the

proceeding

potentially
juror.

would

have

successfully

permitted

argument

counsel

against

the

to

advance

excusal

of

a
the

Ayala, 135 S. Ct. at 2199, 2201, 2204-06.

Under
Flowers

the

bears

probability

prejudice
the

that,

standards

burden

had

of

counsel

of

Strickland

demonstrating

objected

to

the

and

a

Ayala,

reasonable

trial

court’s

excusal of the juror, counsel could have advanced a successful
argument

against

the

juror’s

excusal.

We

have

reviewed

the

record and the briefs on appeal, and conclude that Flowers has
not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment with
respect

to

Flowers’

ineffective

assistance

of

counsel

claim

based on counsel’s failure to object to the excusal of a juror.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3