With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Luka testified that the trooper’s investigative report indeed reflected that law enforcement officers had unsuccessfully tried to find Coleman before trial. Moreover, Reed asserted at the hearing that he sent his friends to look for Coleman, who lived two streets over from him, but none was able to locate the potential witness. Finally, Coleman himself testified that when he first heard his name was raised in the case, he did not want to get involved. He explained, “I was like they need to keep me out of it.” Because the record amply supports the determination that Coleman was unavailable, we are hard-pressed to find that the outcome of Reed’s trial would have been different had Luka investigated Coleman. See Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1439, 1446 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), mod. on other grounds and reh. en banc den.,

A: holding that appellant who filed a  2255 motion but produced no affidavit from the witness in question or any other independent support for his claim failed to show prejudice because he offered only speculation that he was prejudiced by his counsels failure to interview the witness which was not enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial as required by strickland
B: holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation
C: holding that for a habeas petitioner to prove that he was prejudiced by counsels failure to investigate and to produce a certain type of expert witness he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that an ordinarily competent attorney conducting a reasonable investigation would have found an expert similar to the one eventually produced
D: holding that a habeas petitioner must show that counsels errors  actually prejudiced him
C.