092495P.pdf   01/05/2010  William Armstrong  v.  Mike Kemna
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  09-2495
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Hansen and Smith, Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - habeas. For the court's prior opinions in the matter, see
   Armstrong v. Kemna, 365 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2004) and Armstrong v.
   Kemna, 534 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). On remand, the district court erred
   in finding that Armstrong established the second prong of the prejudice
   analysis under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), as
   Armstrong failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the
   outcome of his trial would have been different but for his counsel's
   ineffectiveness in failing to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain the
   attendance of certain potential defense witnesses; at the remand hearing
   the uncalled witnesses presented inconsistent and impeachable testimony
   and the government's case, even factoring in the uncalled witnesses, was
   overwhelming; as Armstrong has not demonstrated prejudice under
   Strickland, he failed to overcome his procedural default of the claim.