CA11: Petitioner’s 2255 fails for speculation and then lack of showing of prejudice

Petitioner’s 2255 fails for speculation and then lack of showing of prejudice. “First, Mathis asserted that counsel was ineffective for failing to fully investigate the forensic evidence to discover that his cell phone had been accessed by law enforcement prior to obtaining the search warrant. To establish a successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance resulted in prejudice. … [¶] Here, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of this claim. Even assuming that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover that law enforcement accessed his cell phone prior to obtaining a search warrant, Mathis cannot establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. As this Court concluded on the appeal from the denial of Mathis’s motion for a new trial, the search warrant application did not contain any information gained from the alleged illegal access, and, thus, the evidence from Mathis’s cell phone would not have been suppressed at trial. Therefore, Mathis is not entitled to a COA on this claim.” Mathis v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13679 (11th Cir. May 8, 2019).*