Close v. United States, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9481

Close pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
On direct appeal we affirmed the § 924(c) conviction in Close, 518 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 2008); he later challenged the denial of his § 2255 motion to vacate that conviction.
The district court granted a certificate of appealability on two ineffective-assistance grounds: failure to object to the prosecutor's rebuttal closing and failure to object to a jury instruction defining the § 924(c)(1)(A) elements.
At trial, officers found firearms, drugs, and a surveillance system in Close's bedroom; Close and his wife testified the firearms were preexisting and for hunting/protection, not for drug trafficking.
The prosecutor's rebuttal commented on Deputy Tobey's credibility; defense counsel did not object, and the district court treated the remarks as not warranting § 2255 relief.
Jury Instruction No. 10 mixed elements from separate § 924(c)(1)(A) offenses, using a Smith-based definition of 'in relation to' alongside 'in furtherance of'; later decisions clarified the correct standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the rebuttal closing violated Sixth Amendment effective assistance.	Close argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object.	USA contends the objection would not have altered the outcome and counsel acted reasonably.	No prejudice; no ineffective-assistance breach.
Whether Jury Instruction No. 10 misdefined 'in furtherance of' and was plain error requiring reversal.	Close asserts plain-error/inadequate instruction affected guilt.	USA contends any error was not prejudicial given the evidence of guilt.	No prejudicial plain-error effect; affirmed.

United States v. Reed, 724 F.2d 677 (8th Cir. 1984) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility)
United States v. Miller, 621 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2010) (prosecutor vouching for credibility constitutes error)
Kent v. United States, 531 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review of incorrect 'in furtherance of' instruction)
United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes in § 924(c)(1)(A))
United States v. Gill, 513 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2008) (instruction need not mirror exact statutory language; plain error review applied)
United States v. Mashek, 606 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error analysis for § 924(c) instruction)
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 1993) (definition of relatedness in § 924(c) guidance)
Fields v. United States, 201 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2000) (objective reasonableness in ineffective-assistance analysis)