Whether trial counsel's failure to object to a limitation on peremptory challenges constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard

No question identified. : has missed a significant amount of time at the office and fallen behind on his appellate filing deadlines. This situation has seriously impeded undersigned counsel’s ability to work and to complete the Petition for Writ of Certiorari . Accordingly, undersigned counsel needs additional time to complete the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Petitioner, through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests an extension of time until January 17, 2024, to file the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Respectfully Submitted on December 18, 2023 /s/ William R. Ponall WILLIAM R. PONALL PONALL LAW 253 N. Orlando Ave., Ste 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-1144 Florida Bar No. 421634 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Application has been provided by email delivery to Assistant Attorney General Pamela Koller, on this 18th day of December, 2023. /s/ William R. Ponall WILLIAM R. PONALL Florida Bar No. 421634 Willis v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2023) 2023 WL 6120314 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Justin WILLIS, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Attorney General, State of Florida, No. 22-11130 | Non-Argument Calendar | Filed: 09/19/2023 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. Attorneys and Law Firms William R. Ponall, Ponall Law, PA, Maitland, FL, for Pamela J. Koller, Attorney General's Office, Daytona Beach, FL, Florida Attorney General Service, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Before Newsom, Brasher, and Abudu, Circuit Judges. Opinion PER CURIAM: *1 Justin Willis, a Florida prisoner, asks us to consider whether a district court erred by denying his petition for habeas corpus. He argues that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. But the district court rightly found that the state court reasonably determined Willis did not suffer prejudice. Accordingly, after a careful review, we affirm. A jury convicted Justin Willis of murder and robbery in 2012. After he was sentenced to life in prison, he challenged his conviction by arguing that his counsel, Leslie Sweet, WESTLAW ineffectively assisted him during trial. As relevant to this appeal, she did not object when the trial judge mistakenly limited Willis to nine peremptory challenges, preventing him from excluding a juror who had been the victim of a bank robbery. Sweet also failed to preserve that issue for appeal. The state court disagreed that Sweet ineffectively assisted Willis and denied him any postconviction relief. So he petitioned the federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus. But, again, he faced resistance. The district court concluded that the state court reasonably applied clearly established law in denying his ineffective assistance claims and denied his petition. We granted a certificate of appealability on one issue: “[d]id Willis's trial counsel provide ineffective assistance, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), during jury selection with respect to Willis's peremptory challenges, and by failing to preserve for appellate review any issue with the peremptory challenges?” IL. We review a district court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Bester v. Warden, 836 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir. 2016). But we review only those issues specified in the certificate of appealability. Hodges v. Att'y Gen., State of Fla., 506 F.3d 1337, 1340-42 (11th Cir. 2007). And although the parties also disagree whether Willis properly exhausted his claim in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), we can skip that question if the petition is easier to deny on the merits. Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th Cir. 2015). Ill. As relevant here, under the Antiterrorism and Effectiv