The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-80194-CIV-MARRA/REINHART
(22-80050-CR-MARRA)
JAMES LEONARD SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
FINAL JUDGMENT ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF
THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Bruce Reinhart, United States Magistrate
Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters. See ECF No. 12.
Following a September 13, 2024, evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 28, 30), Magistrate Reinhart
issued an R&R concluding that Petitioner James Leonard Smith has not met his burden of proving
entitlement to habeas corpus relief and recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 Petition. See ECF No. 31. This Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and
the issues in the R&R to which Movant has filed timely Objections. See ECF No. 32. This Court
agrees with the well-reasoned analysis and conclusions in Magistrate Reinhart’s R&R, which this
Court fully adopts herein.
In the R&R (ECF No. 31), Magistrate Reinhart addresses each of the four Grounds
Petitioner raised in his Motion. As to Ground One, wherein Petitioner claims his trial counsel
was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal after being instructed to do so,
Magistrate Reinhart credits the testimony of Petitioner’s trial counsel at the evidentiary hearing to
conclude that Petitioner told his trial counsel not to appeal. See ECF No. 31 p. 6. As to Ground
Two, wherein Petitioner claims his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not objecting
to Petitioner’s being treated as a career criminal under the Sentencing Guidelines, Magistrate
Reinhart concludes his career offender status was properly evaluated under the Supreme Court’s
holding in Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024). See ECF No. 31 p. 9. As to Ground
Three, wherein Petitioner claims his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to
bring a Second Amendment challenge to his felon-in-possession count, Magistrate Reinhart
concludes that Eleventh Circuit precedent rejects Petitioner’s argument. See ECF No. 31 p. 10.
Finally, as to Ground Four, wherein Petitioner claims his trial counsel was constitutionally
ineffective for failing to object to the Presentence Investigation Report’s conversion rate of
51.6828 grams of crack cocaine to 184.559279 kilograms of marijuana to calculate his sentence,
Magistrate Reinhart concludes that there was no prejudice to Petitioner since his advisory
sentencing range was based on the career offender guideline, which does not take into account the
drug quantity. See ECF No. 31 p. 10.
Petitioner objects to certain of the R&R’s conclusions as to Ground One. See ECF No. 32.
Specifically, Petitioner contends that his counsel’s failure to inform him of the availability of a
challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence under the recent change in federal law by the
Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022),
rendered his decision to instruct his counsel not to appeal not knowing and voluntary under
Thompson v. United States, 504 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2007). See ECF No. 32 pp. 4–8. Petitioner
therefore objects to Magistrate Reinhart’s conclusion that it was “highly questionable” that
Petitioner could raise a meritorious Second Amendment argument on appeal, and that the relevant
Second Amendment arguments at issue “involve highly nuanced, sophisticated issues of federal
- 2 -
criminal practice . . . [and] [w]hile it might have been preferable for them to be explained to
[Petitioner], trial counsel was not constitutionally deficient for not discussing these topics with
[him].” See ECF No. 32 p. 5.
It was not constitutionally deficient for Petitioner’s trial counsel to fail to explain the
potential ramifications of the Bruen decision because the law in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals is that Bruen did not abrogate the exiting and binding precedent of United States v. Rozier,
598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010), that felons do not have a Second Amendment right to possess
firearms. United States v. Dubois, 94 F. 4th 1284, 1293 (11th Cir. 2024). It is not ineffective
assistance of counsel for an attorney to fail to raise, never mind discuss with his or her client,
claims that are without merit. See United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F. 3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000).
Even assuming that the law in this regard may change in the future, counsel’s failure to raise certain
points which subsequently gain judicial recognition does not render counsel ineffective. Alvord v.
Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 1984); Sullivan v. Wainwright, 695 F. 2d 1306, 1309
(11th Cir. 1983). Petitioner has not demonstrated error in Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s conclusion
that trial counsel’s omission to discuss the developing Second Amendment arguments under Bruen
did not render his performance constitutionally deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984) and Thompson.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1. The Report and Recommendation Recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s §
2255 Motion (ECF No. 31) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 32) are overruled.
3. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
- 3 -
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED.
4. No certificate of appealability shall issue because Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. $2253 (c)(2).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 28" day of April,
2025.
pe
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
Copies provided to:
James Leonard Smith, pro se
92563-509
Coleman Medium
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Box 1032
Coleman, FL 33521
All Counsel of record
-4-