United States v. Jerome Antwan Cooper, 689 F. App'x 901

On March 10, 2014, Home Depot loss-prevention employees and Officer Brandon Tufts restrained Jerome Cooper after suspected shoplifting; Tufts searched Cooper’s pocket and found a loaded pistol. Cooper was a convicted felon and later indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.
Cooper was tried, convicted by a jury, and received a 120‑month sentence (statutory maximum) based on Guidelines calculations that treated two prior felony convictions as "crimes of violence."
Cooper raised multiple challenges: ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to move to suppress the firearm and failure to interview a government witness; repeated pro se motions for new counsel; a motion for new trial; and a Guidelines challenge that a Georgia robbery by sudden snatching conviction is not a "crime of violence."
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective‑assistance/new counsel claims; counsel explained tactical reasons for not filing a suppression motion (to avoid eliciting admissions and revealing cross‑examination strategy).
The district court denied relief on the motions and adopted the Presentence Report; Cooper appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed.

Issue	Cooper's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1) Counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress the gun	Hastay was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion	Counsel made a tactical, reasonable decision not to risk admissions or reveal trial strategy	Affirmed — record shows plausible tactical basis; performance not constitutionally deficient
2) Counsel ineffective for not interviewing a government witness	Failure to interview prejudiced defense	Record insufficient on direct appeal to resolve this claim	Dismissed on direct appeal as undeveloped; remediable in habeas with evidentiary hearing
3) Denial of motions for new counsel	Client–counsel relationship irreparably broken; good cause for new counsel	No good‑cause showing (no conflict, breakdown causing prejudice) and no demonstrated prejudice from continued counsel	Affirmed — even if denial erred, any error harmless because no prejudice shown
4) Prior Georgia robbery by sudden snatching counts as a "crime of violence" under USSG §4B1.2(a)(2)	The Georgia statute does not necessarily require risk of physical injury	The statutory elements (awareness of victim; required force to transfer property) allow a reasonable risk of violent reaction — fits residual clause	Affirmed — conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" for Guidelines; Guidelines residual clause not invalid under Due Process per Beckles

Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective‑assistance claims generally preserved for collateral review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Welch v. United States, 683 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (sudden‑snatching robbery poses substantial risk of physical injury under ACCA residual clause)
Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. _, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges under Due Process)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach for prior‑conviction analysis)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits on modified categorical approach)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (use "least of the acts criminalized" in categorical analysis)
McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (examine the version of state law under which defendant was convicted)