Charles King, III v. United States

── Charles King, III v. United States ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 19, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12480 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12480 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CHARLES KING, III, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket Nos. 2:24-cv-08005-ACA, 2:18-cr-00317-ACA-SGC-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Charles King, III, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the dis- trict court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. The USCA11 Case: 25-12480 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12480 district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in part as to the issue of “whether trial counsel provided ineffective assis- tance by failing to argue that King’s Fourth Amendment waiver was distinguishable from the waiver in Samson v. California1 be- cause King’s waiver covered only warrantless searches and did not extend to suspicionless searches.” On appeal, King argues that his attorney at trial was ineffec- tive by failing to argue in support of his motion to suppress that his parole condition waiving warrantless searches did not include sus- picionless searches. He argues that he was prejudiced because, were the fruits of the suspicionless search excluded, he would not have been convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed ques- tion of law and fact that we review de novo. Devine v. United States, 520 F.3d 1286, 1287 (11th Cir. 2008). In order to prevail on an inef- fective assistance claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that (1) “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We need not address one of the foregoing two prongs if the defendant cannot meet the other. United States v. Webb, 655 F.3d 1238, 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2011). To prove that coun- sel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, the appellant must show that counsel made errors so serious that he was not function- ing as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland 1 547 U.S. 843 (2006). USCA11 Case: 25-12480 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-12480 Opinion of the Court 3 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Counsel is not deficient for failing to raise a meritless claim. Denson v. United States, 804 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 2015). In Samson v. California, the Supreme Court held that a suspi- cionless search of a parolee did not violate the Fourth Amendment because (1) individuals on state parole have a diminished reasona- ble expectation of privacy generally and (2) California’s parole con- ditions explicitly permitted a suspicionless search. 547 U.S. 843, 851-52, 57 (2006). In Samson, the Supreme Court reasoned