Asadorian v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER denying 1 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the United States and against Petitioner, and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/11/2021. (JHC)

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID 62

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
EDIK ASADORIAN,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No.:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

3:17-cv-1241-MMH-JBT
3:15-cr-65-MMH-JBT

/
ORDER

This case is before the Court on Edik Asadorian’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Civ. Doc. 1, § 2255 Motion)
and pro se memorandum (Civ. Doc. 2, Memorandum). 1 A jury found Asadorian
guilty of sex trafficking and traveling in interstate commerce to violate a
protection order. Asadorian challenges his convictions based on three grounds
of ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States has responded in
opposition. (Civ. Doc. 6, Response). Although given the opportunity to file a
reply brief (Civ. Docs. 5, 7), Asadorian has not done so. Thus, the case is ripe for
a decision.

Citations to the record in the underlying criminal case, United States vs. Edik
Asadorian, No. 3:15-cr-65-MMH-JBT, will be denoted “Crim. Doc. __.” Citations to the record
in the civil § 2255 case, No. 3:17-cv-1241-MMH-JBT, will be denoted “Civ. Doc. __.”
1

1

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID 63

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings 2, the Court has considered the need for an evidentiary
hearing and determines that a hearing is not necessary to resolve the merits of
this action. See Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873, 877 (11th Cir. 2015) (an
evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion is not required when the petitioner
asserts allegations that are affirmatively contradicted by the record or patently
frivolous, or if in assuming the facts that he alleges are true, he still would not
be entitled to any relief); Patel v. United States, 252 F. App’x 970, 975 (11th
Cir. 2007). 3 For the reasons set forth below, Asadorian’s § 2255 Motion is due
to be denied.
I.

Background

On November 13, 2014, while living in New York, Asadorian and his
girlfriend got into an altercation in their apartment. (Crim. Doc. 84, Trial
Transcript, Vol. I at 63-65). Officers from the New York Police Department
(NYPD) responded to the home, and Asadorian’s girlfriend, V.D., told the
officers that Asadorian had choked her. Id. at 66-67, 76-77. The officers arrested

Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings expressly requires the Court
to review the record, including any transcripts and submitted materials, to determine whether
an evidentiary hearing is warranted before resolving a § 2255 motion.
2

Although the Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as precedent, they may be
cited throughout this Order as persuasive authority on a particular point. Rule 32.1 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly permits the Court to cite to unpublished
opinions that have been issued on or after January 1, 2007. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a).
3

2

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID 64

Asadorian for strangulation and assault, id. at 77-79, and took photographs of
V.D.’s injuries (which were later admitted at trial) (see Crim. Doc. 58, Gov’t
Exhibits 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). The day after the arrest, the Criminal Court of Queens
County, New York entered an order of protection against Asadorian, instructing
him to stay away from V.D., not to go within 100 yards of her, and to refrain
from communication or any other contact with her. See Trial Tr. Vol. I at 87-91;
Gov’t Ex. 3. The order stated it would remain in place until May 13, 2015, even
if V.D. consented to having contact, and that Asadorian was advised in court of
the order’s issuance and its contents. See id. The order specifically advised
Asadorian that it was a federal crime to cross state lines to violate the order.
Id.
Shortly thereafter, Asadorian and V.D. resumed their relationship. Near
the end of November 2014, they left New York for Florida. (See Crim. Doc. 85,
Trial Transcript Vol. II at 65-68; Gov’t Ex. 4). The two stopped in several cities
along the way, including Charleston, South Carolina, where V.D. posted an
online advertisement for body rubs with Asadorian’s knowledge. Trial Tr. Vol.
I at 216-17. They arrived at a hotel in Jacksonville, Florida on December 5,
2014. Gov’t Exs. 8-1, 8-2. With Asadorian’s knowledge, V.D. began posting
advertisements for “sensual body work” and “Nuru slide” massages on
Backpage.com, charging $150 for “incalls” and $200 for “outcalls.” Gov’t Ex.

3

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID 65

B18; Trial Tr. Vol. I at 219-22. The advertisement contained four photographs
of V.D. wearing lingerie. Trial Tr. Vol. I at 196-99.
An undercover detective responded to the advertisement and called V.D.,
who advised she was available for a night call to his address. Trial Tr. Vol. II at
20-21. V.D. advised the detective that the price for a body rub was $200 because
she had to pay her driver, Asadorian, $50. Id. at 27. Asadorian drove V.D. to
meet the undercover detective in Orange Park, Florida. Trial Tr. Vol. I at 24344. V.D. met with the undercover officer and the two discussed what services
she would provide. Trial Tr. Vol. II at 28. V.D. said she would provide a “Nuru
Massage,” Trial Tr. Vol. I at 244, which is “where you slide your body on
somebody’s else’s body,” Trial Tr. Vol. II at 27. V.D. assured the detective that
he would feel good all over at the end of the massage. Id. at 28. V.D. brought a
bag that contained lingerie and Nuru gel. Trial Tr. Vol. I at 188; Trial Tr. Vol.
II at 86, 91. While meeting with the detective, V.D. called Asadorian to notify
him she was safe. Trial Tr. Vol. II at 37-38.
Police officers arrested V.D. after she finished discussing the services she
would provide. Id. at 41. They also arrested Asadorian while he was waiting for
V.D. in the parking lot outside the residence where V.D. met with the officer.
Id.
A federal grand jury eventually returned a two-count superseding
indictment against Asadorian. (Crim. Doc. 26, Superseding Indictment). In
4

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID 66

Count One, the grand jury charged Asadorian with transporting V.D. in
interstate commerce to engage in prostitution and criminal sexual activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. In Count Two, the grand jury charged him with
traveling in interstate commerce to violate a protection order, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1).
Asadorian pled not guilty to the charges and proceeded to trial. Over the
course of three days, the jury heard testimony from nine witnesses for the
government, including V.D., three NYPD officers, and four detectives involved
in the investigation and arrest of Asadorian. The defense moved for judgment
of acquittal at the conclusion of the government’s case, Trial Tr. Vol. II at 114,
but it did not present witnesses of its own. In moving for a judgment of acquittal,
the defense asserted that the government had not met its burden of proof. Id.
The Court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, finding that the evidence
was sufficient to allow the jury to render a guilty verdict as to both charges. Id.
at 123–25. During closing arguments, the defense argued to the jury that the
government’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Asadorian was guilty of
the charges. (Crim. Doc. 86, Trial Tr. Vol. III at 30-51). After deliberations, the
jury returned a guilty verdict as to both counts in the Superseding Indictment.
(Crim. Doc. 62, Jury Verdict).
The case proceeded to sentencing on April 11, 2016. At the conclusion of
the sentencing hearing, the Court sentenced Asadorian to concurrent terms of
5

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID 67

32 months in prison as to each count of conviction, followed by a five-year term
of supervised release as to Count One and a concurrent term of supervised
release of three years as to Count Two. (Crim. Doc. 71, Judgment).
Asadorian filed a notice of appeal, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Asadorian, 688
F. App’x 825 (11th Cir. 2017). This § 2255 Motion timely followed.
II.

Discussion

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, a person in
federal custody may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Section
2255 permits collateral relief on four grounds: (1) the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court lacked
jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the imposed sentence exceeded the
maximum authorized by law; and (4) the imposed sentence is otherwise subject
to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C § 2255(a) (2008). Only jurisdictional claims,
constitutional claims, and claims of error that are so fundamentally defective
as to cause a complete miscarriage of justice will warrant relief through
collateral attack. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184-86 (1979);
Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1138 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“[A]
district court lacks the authority to review the alleged error unless the claimed
error constitute[s] a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete

6

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID 68

miscarriage of justice.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Supreme
Court has recognized that a petitioner’s claim that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment is properly brought
in a collateral proceeding under § 2255. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500,
504 (2003).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a § 2255 petitioner must
demonstrate both: (1) that his counsel’s conduct amounted to constitutionally
deficient performance, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced
his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Martin v.
United States, 949 F.3d 662, 667 (11th Cir. 2020). In determining whether the
petitioner has satisfied the first requirement, that counsel performed
deficiently, the Court adheres to the standard of reasonably effective assistance.
Weeks v. Jones, 26 F.3d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S.
at 688). The petitioner must show, in light of all the circumstances, that
counsel’s performance fell outside the “‘wide range of professionally competent
assistance.’” Scott v. United States, 890 F.3d 1239, 1258 (11th Cir. 2018)
(quoting Payne v. Allen, 539 F.3d 1297, 1315 (11th Cir. 2008)). In other words,
“[t]he standard for effective assistance of counsel is reasonableness, not
perfection.” Brewster v. Hetzel, 913 F.3d 1042, 1056 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). To satisfy the second requirement, that counsel’s
deficient performance prejudiced the defense, the petitioner must show a
7

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID 69

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. Martin, 949 F.3d at 667 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky,
559 U.S. 356, 366 (2010)). In determining whether a petitioner has met the two
prongs of deficient performance and prejudice, the Court considers the totality
of the evidence. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. However, because both prongs are
necessary, “there is no reason for a court… to approach the inquiry in the same
order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes
an insufficient showing on one.” Id. at 697; see also Wellington v. Moore, 314
F.3d 1256, 1261 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002) (“We need not discuss the performance
deficiency component of [petitioner’s] ineffective assistance claim because
failure to satisfy the prejudice component is dispositive.”).
A. Ground One
First, Petitioner alleges that trial counsel gave ineffective assistance by
failing to investigate or summon witnesses who allegedly would have provided
favorable testimony. § 2255 Motion at 4; Memorandum at 7-14. According to
Asadorian, these witnesses “would have proved he did not possess the requisite
intent to violate the statute with which he was charged.” § 2255 Motion at 4.
Specifically, Asadorian asserts that the witnesses would have proven that, for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a), he lacked specific intent to violate the New

8

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID 70

York restraining order when he traveled across state lines with V.D.
Memorandum at 9-10.
Asadorian states that, right before he and V.D. left New York for Florida,
she went to a state courthouse and inquired about having the protection order
lifted. See id. at 10–11. Upon returning to the vehicle, Asadorian claims that
V.D. told him “everything was alright regarding the restrictive order and that
they could leave for Florida.” Id. at 11; see also id. at 12. Asadorian claims he
simply relied on V.D.’s statement in deciding to leave New York, id. at 12–13,
even though he admits it was a violation of the protection order to have had
that contact with V.D. in the first place, id. at 7, 12.
Asadorian contends that counsel should have contacted the unnamed
New York court employee with whom V.D. allegedly spoke about lifting the
protection order. Id. at 10. He also asserts that counsel should have contacted
his New York landlord, whom Asadorian notified in October 2014 of his intent
to vacate the apartment and move to Florida. Id. Additionally, he argues that
counsel should have cross-examined V.D. about the circumstances of their
reconciliation, her alleged request that the protection order be lifted, and what
she told Asadorian about requesting that the order be lifted. Id. at 11.
This claim lacks merit. “Complaints of uncalled witnesses are not favored,
because the presentation of testimonial evidence is a matter of trial strategy
and because allegations of what a witness would have testified are largely
9

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID 71

speculative.” Buckelew v. United States, 575 F.2d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1978). 4
Even if counsel's failure to call a witness “appears to have been unwise in
retrospect, the decision will be held to have been ineffective assistance only if it
was so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen
it.” Dingle v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 480 F.3d 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[t]he mere fact that other witnesses might
have been available ... is not a sufficient ground to prove ineffectiveness of
counsel.” Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1514 (11th Cir. 1995) (en banc)
(citation omitted). Additionally, “evidence about the testimony of a putative
witness must generally be presented in the form of actual testimony by the
witness or on affidavit. A defendant cannot simply state that the testimony
would have been favorable; self-serving speculation will not sustain an
ineffective assistance claim.” United States v. Ashimi, 932 F.2d 643, 650 (7th
Cir. 1991) (footnotes omitted) (cited by Estiven v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 1614056-D, 2017 WL 6606915, at *4 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2017) (denying COA)).
Here, Asadorian provides no affidavit or proffer of testimony from V.D.,
his former landlord, or the unnamed New York court employee setting forth
what testimony they would have given. Thus, Petitioner has offered no evidence

Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that were issued
on or before September 30, 1981 are binding in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981).
4

10

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID 72

that, even if these witnesses had testified (or if V.D. had been questioned as he
argues), the testimony would have affected the outcome of trial. Notably,
“speculation that the missing witnesses would have been helpful” “is
‘insufficient to carry the burden of a habeas corpus petitioner.’” Johnson v.
Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1187 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Aldrich v. Wainwright,
777 F.2d 630, 636 (11th Cir. 1985)). Because Asadorian’s “self-serving
speculation” that the witnesses’ testimony would have been favorable “will not
sustain an ineffective assistance claim,” Ashimi, 932 F.2d at 650, Asadorian has
not shown that counsel’s failure to call or question the witnesses was deficient
or prejudicial under Strickland.
Moreover, Asadorian was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to elicit the
aforementioned testimony because much (if not all) of it would have been
irrelevant. Asadorian was advised of the issuance and contents of the protection
order, including its prohibition on Asadorian having any contact with V.D. Trial
Tr. Vol. I at 87-91; Gov’t Ex. 3. The order notified Asadorian that it would
remain in place even if V.D. consented to having contact with him, and that it
was a federal crime to cross state lines to violate the order. Id. He was further
advised that the protection order would remain in place until May 13, 2015. Id.
That Asadorian may have notified his landlord in October 2014 of his intent to
leave New York does not mean that it was permissible for him to leave New
York with V.D. on or around December 1, 2014, after the protection order had
11

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID 73

been issued in November 2014. And, although good-faith reliance on the advice
of a government official, attorney, or other professional about a matter within
their expertise might negate specific intent, see, e.g., United States v. Kottwitz,
614 F.3d 1241, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010) (good faith reliance on accountant’s
advice), opinion withdrawn in part on denial of rehearing, 627 F.3d 1383 (11th
Cir. 2010), Asadorian could not have relied on V.D.’s statements about the order
being lifted because she was not an expert. In any event, it is far from evident
that Asadorian’s reliance on V.D.’s statement was in good faith, especially
considering that his contact with her was in violation of the order of protection
and that he was advised that the protection order would remain in place until
May 13, 2015, even if V.D. consented to having contact with him.
Accordingly, the claim in Ground One lacks merit and relief as to this
claim is due to be denied.
B. Ground Two
Next, Asadorian contends that counsel gave ineffective assistance by
denying him the right to testify. § 2255 Motion at 5; Memorandum at 14-19.
Asadorian asserts that he decided to testify because of counsel’s failure to call
other witnesses to the stand. According to Asadorian, however, “[c]ounsel not
only refused to accept the defendant’s decision to testify on his own behalf and
would not call him to the stand, but also failed to inform the defendant that this

12

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID 74

was a constitutional right in which the ultimate decision was for him to decide.”
§ 2255 Motion at 5. Asadorian alleges that counsel told him he was not allowed
to testify and that counsel “decided the issue for him.” Id.
A defendant has a constitutional right to testify in his behalf. Rock v.
Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 (1987). That right is personal and fundamental; it
cannot be waived by the court or trial counsel, but only by the defendant. United
States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1532 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed, the defendant
is the one “who above all others may be in a position to meet the prosecution’s
case.” Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 582 (1961).
“[T]he appropriate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify
was violated by defense counsel is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
under Strickland....” Teague, 953 F.2d at 1534. Counsel has a duty to “advise
the defendant (1) of his right to testify or not testify; (2) of the strategic
implications of each choice; and (3) that it is ultimately for the defendant
himself to decide whether to testify.” McGriff v. Dep’t of Corrections, 338 F.3d
1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Teague, 953 F.2d at 1533). Counsel performs
deficiently where he or she “has refused to accept the defendant’s decision to
testify and refused to call him to the stand, or where defense counsel never
informed the defendant of his right to testify and that the final decision belongs
to the defendant alone.” Gallego v. United States, 174 F.3d 1196, 1197 (11th
Cir. 1999). If counsel has performed deficiently, the petitioner must further
13

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID 75

establish prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s error. Strickland, 466
U.S. at 697; see also Nejad v. Att’y General, State of Ga., 830 F.3d 1280, 1290
(11th Cir. 2016).
While the decision to testify is the defendant’s alone, an attorney does not
render ineffective assistance by strategically advising a defendant not to take
the stand. “[I]f defense counsel believes that it would be unwise for the
defendant to testify, counsel may, and indeed should, advise the client in the
strongest possible terms not to testify.” Teague, 953 F.2d at 1533.
Here, the record refutes Asadorian’s claim that trial counsel prevented
him from testifying or that Asadorian was unaware he had the right to testify.
The Court had several discussions on the record with Asadorian and his federal
public defenders, Jeffrey Gedbaw and Maurice Grant, about his right to testify.
On the first day of trial, the Court advised Asadorian:
THE COURT:

I just want to remind you – and I think I did do
this at the last status, but you have the right to
testify in this case and you have the right not to
testify. That choice is entirely yours. No one can
force you to testify.
You need to make that decision. You should
confer with your attorney, but in the end, it has
to be your decision. Do you understand that?

[ASADORIAN]:

Yes, Your Honor.

14

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID 76

THE COURT:

All right. So I’m told that the Government may
finish their case tomorrow.
If Mr. Gedbaw stands up and announces that he
rests and you have not testified, then I’m going to
understand that you made that decision not to
testify.
Is that fair?

[ASADORIAN]:

Yes, Your Honor.

Trial Tr. Vol. I at 297-98. Later that day, Mr. Gedbaw advised the Court that
the only evidence the defense might put on would be Asadorian’s testimony, but
he was not yet certain of that. Id. at 299. Mr. Gedbaw stated that he would
discuss both options with Asadorian, but that it was something Asadorian
would need to decide after the government had completed its case. Id.
On the second day of trial, as the government was approaching the end of
its presentation, Mr. Gedbaw notified the Court during a sidebar that he did
not know if Asadorian was going to testify. Trial Tr. Vol. II at 94. Mr. Gedbaw
stated that Asadorian had indicated that morning he was not going to take the
stand, but that Mr. Gedbaw would need to consult with Asadorian to see if
anything had changed. Id. The Court and Asadorian’s public defenders agreed
that, once the government had finished presenting its evidence, counsel should
talk again with Asadorian about whether he wanted to testify. Id. at 95. The
government rested its case a short time later and the Court prepared to recess
for lunch. Before recessing, the Court reminded Asadorian’s counsel to discuss
15

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID 77

with him whether he wished to testify. Id. at 112-13. Once the Court
reconvened, Mr. Gedbaw announced that “Mr. Asadorian does not wish to
testify on his own behalf,” and that the defense would rest its case when the
jury returned. Id. at 113. Asadorian did not object to that statement.
The foregoing record establishes that Asadorian was aware of his right to
testify and that he alone had the right to decide whether or not to testify. The
record further shows that, contrary to his self-serving allegations, Asadorian
decided not to testify. Moreover, Asadorian fails to explain how, in light of the
evidence presented at trial, there is a reasonable probability the jury would
have acquitted him even if he had testified. Accordingly, relief on the claim in
Ground Two is due to be denied.
C. Ground Three
Finally, Asadorian asserts that counsel gave ineffective assistance during
jury selection by failing to object when the presiding judge advised prospective
jurors that Asadorian was not a citizen of the United States. Memorandum at
4. Asadorian alleges that the judge “capitalized on the issue and made emphasis
to the jury on this point … implying he could be from one of the countries
connected to drugs, prostitution, or drug cartels such as Mexico, or from the
middle east countries connected to terrorism.” Id.

16

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID 78

Asadorian mischaracterizes the record. During jury selection, the
Magistrate Judge advised the jury pool that Asadorian was not an American
citizen in the context of asking the prospective jurors whether they could be fair
and impartial. The judge stated:
The defendant in this case, Mr. Asadorian, is not a citizen of this
country. Under the laws of the United States a defendant who is
not a citizen of the United States has the same constitutional rights
in a criminal trial, including the presumption of innocence, as
someone who is a citizen.
Is there anyone who will have difficulty following that rule of law?
(Crim. Doc. 93, Jury Selection Transcript at 99). This question was agreed upon
by the United States and defense counsel. Id. at 14–15. There was no reference
to Asadorian’s country of origin.
“The purpose of voir dire is to enable the defendant to evaluate the
prospective jurors and select a fair and impartial jury.” United States v. Vera,
701 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1983). Asking prospective jurors whether the
defendant’s nationality or lack of citizenship will prejudice them is part of the
process of ensuring that the jury is fair and impartial. Cf. United States v.
Mendez, 490 F. App’x 287, 290–91 (11th Cir. 2012) (defendants argued that
district court erred by not asking prospective jurors whether they would be
biased by defendants’ Honduran nationality, but the judge asked the jury pool
this question). Here, the Magistrate Judge appropriately asked the jury pool
whether they could be fair and impartial given Asadorian’s lack of citizenship.
17

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID 79

Because counsel had no ground on which to object, they did not render
ineffective assistance by not doing so. Therefore, relief on the claim in this
ground is due to be denied as well.
III.

Certificate of Appealability

The undersigned opines that a certificate of appealability is not
warranted. This Court should issue a certificate of appealability only if the
petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this substantial showing, Asadorian “must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S.
274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that
“the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further,’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot
v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Where a district court has rejected a petitioner's claims on the merits, the
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court's assessment of the claims debatable or wrong. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
However, when the district court has rejected a claim on procedural grounds,
the petitioner must show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct
18

Case 3:17-cv-01241-MMH-JBT Document 8 Filed 03/11/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID 80

in its procedural ruling.” Id. Upon consideration of the record as a whole, this
Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
As such, and in accordance with the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases
in the United States District Courts, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Petitioner Edik Asadorian’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence (Civ. Doc. 1) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the United States and
against Asadorian, and close the file.
3. If Asadorian appeals the denial of the petition, the Court denies a
certificate of appealability. Because this Court has determined that a
certificate of appealability is not warranted, the Clerk shall terminate
from the pending motions report any motion to proceed on appeal as a
pauper that may be filed in this case. Such termination shall serve as
a denial of the motion.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 11th day of March,
2021.

lc 19
Copies:
Counsel of record
Petitioner

19