Donaldson v. United States

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0335n.06
No. 06-1265 FILED
Jun 02, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PATRICE DONALDSON, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Petitioner - Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) PER CURIAM
)
Respondent - Appellee. )
BEFORE: KEITH, BOGGS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam. On October 24, 2001, Patrice Donaldson was convicted in federal court of
conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine. Donaldson appealed his conviction, and in 2004 we
affirmed. See United States v. Donaldson, 110 F. App’x 603 (6th Cir. 2004). Donaldson then
moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the court to vacate his sentence on the grounds of prosecutorial
misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. On December 2, 2005, the district court denied
Donaldson’s motion. The district court then issued a certificate of appealability only as to
Donaldson’s second claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, and not as to prosecutorial misconduct.
Donaldson asked us to enlarge the certificate of appealability, a request we denied. Donaldson
moved for reconsideration, and on March 7, 2008 we denied his motion, thus restricting Donaldson’s
appeal to the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion on the grounds of ineffective assistance of
counsel.
No. 06-1265
Patrice Donaldson v. United States of America
“In reviewing the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we apply a de novo standard of
review to the legal issues and uphold the factual findings of the district court unless they are clearly
erroneous.” Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471, 473 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Benitez v. United
States, 521 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2008)). Having duly considered the arguments and the record,
we find Donaldson’s appeal to be meritless. As the district court noted in its December 2, 2005
opinion, in order to demonstrate that he was deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel,
Donaldson must demonstrate both: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that such
deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). Donaldson claims that his counsel failed to object to alleged instances of prosecutorial
misconduct. In affirming his conviction, however, we explicitly found “no merit in [Donaldson’s]
claim of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct,” and concluded that “[Donaldson’s o]ther claims of
prosecutorial misconduct, including repeated use of leading questions and vouching for witnesses,
are without merit.” Donaldson, 110 F. App’x at 610, 610 n.3. As we have already rejected
Donaldson’s contention that his trial was marred by prosecutorial misconduct, Donaldson cannot
demonstrate that his counsel’s failure to object to the prosecution’s actions in any way prejudiced
his defense, and so cannot meet the second Strickland prong.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Donaldson’s motion to vacate his
sentence.
-2-