United States of America v. Shahiee Jermaine Flowers, a/k/a Munchie

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of reasonableness, and (2) counsel’s
deficient performance was prejudicial. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The Supreme Court
recently addressed the standard for establishing prejudice
arising from a trial court’s exclusion of the 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 of 3 --

3
actual prejudice from the exclusion of counsel from a proceeding
involving the composition of the jury if counsel’s presence at
the proceeding would have permitted counsel to advance a
potentially successfully argument against the excusal of the
juror. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. at 2199, 2201, 2204-06.
Under the prejudice standards of Strickland and Ayala,
Flowers bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable
probability that, had counsel objected to the 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 with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --