Hafiz Muhammad Khan v. United States, 928 F.3d 1264

Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan, a U.S. citizen and imam, was convicted of providing material support to the Pakistani Taliban based primarily on recorded calls and financial records; he was tried after Rule 15 depositions were authorized to be taken in Pakistan via live video.
The district court conditioned permission for Pakistani depositions on defense counsel Khurrum Wahid obtaining either explicit Pakistani approval or an acknowledgment that no permission was needed; Wahid traveled to Pakistan, consulted officials and a local lawyer, and reported ambiguity about whether formal permission could or would be granted.
The district court allowed depositions to proceed without formal Pakistani approval; video conferencing worked for one witness (Ali Rehman) but then the connection was abruptly cut—likely by Pakistani authorities—preventing several defense witnesses from testifying live.
Trial proceeded; Khan testified and was convicted. On appeal the convictions were affirmed. Khan later filed a §2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance because Wahid failed to obtain formal Pakistani approval as ordered.
The district court denied relief, finding Wahid’s performance was not deficient (a reasonable strategic choice given diplomatic and logistical barriers) and Khan failed to show prejudice; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Khan's Argument	Government/Wahid's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to obtain formal Pakistani approval for depositions is per se ineffective assistance	Failure to comply with the court’s instruction constituted per se deficient performance	Strickland forbids per se rules; counsel’s choice was a reasonable strategy given diplomatic uncertainty	Not per se ineffective; Strickland totality-of-circumstances applies
Whether Wahid’s conduct was objectively deficient under Strickland	Waived or ignored a court condition, breaching duty and amounting to ineffective assistance	Counsel reasonably investigated, faced unprecedented obstacles, and made a tactical choice to proceed without formal approval	Not deficient; decision was reasonable trial strategy
Whether Khan suffered prejudice from counsel’s decision	But for counsel’s failure to secure formal approval, witnesses would have testified and outcome would differ	No evidence formal approval would have been granted; evidence of guilt was overwhelming	No prejudice shown; §2255 relief denied
Whether breach of a duty to the court automatically implies ineffective assistance to client	Court-disobedience warrants relief independent of Strickland	Duty to court and duty to client are distinct; breach of court obligation does not automatically equal Strickland deficiency	Breach of duty to court does not by itself establish Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (rejects categorical rules inconsistent with Strickland’s totality-of-circumstances approach)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (refuses bright-line rule on counsel’s duty to file notice of appeal; applies Strickland analysis)
Solina v. United States, 709 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1983) (discusses representation by unlicensed practitioner and the scope of ‘counsel’)
Harrison v. United States, 387 F.2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (addresses adequacy of representation by unlicensed practitioner)
United States v. Bergman, 599 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2010) (treats representation by unlicensed counsel and discusses perceived per se rules)
Gordon v. United States, 518 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejects per se ineffective-assistance rules in various contexts)
Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (deference to reasonable trial strategy)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (total deprivation of counsel concept)