Devine v. U.S., 11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008
07-11206 Devine v. U.S.
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: William R. Devine, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability on the following issue: “Whether the district court erred in finding that appellant’s counsel was not deficient for failing to file a direct appeal, in light of Thompson v. United States, 481 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2007).”1 Devine argues that counsel did not adequately consult with Devine about his appellate rights. Further, Devine argues that he demonstrated an interest in an appeal, and thus counsel had a duty to consult with him regarding an appeal. Finally, he argues that he was prejudiced as a result of counsel failing to consult with him regarding an appeal. …the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Devine v. U.S.
- After this appeal was taken, this Court sua sponte withdrew the opinion in Thompson and replaced it with another opinion, Thompson v. United States, 504 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2007). [↩]
