to such relief for two independent reasons. First, as the district court properly concluded, Parker has not shown that his trial counsel rendered deficient performance in failing to object to the jury instruction on aggravated battery, which was drawn almost verbatim from the then-existing standard instruction that had been approved by the Florida Supreme Court. At the time of his trial in September 2003, no Florida court had held that the standard jury instruction was flawed. The Smalls decision was not issued until November 30, 2004, more than a full year after Parker’s trial. It is well settled in this circuit that an attorney cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to anticipate a later change in the law. See Black v. United States, 373 F.3d 1140, 1144, 1146 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ardley, 273 F.3d 991, 993
holding pcr was properly denied where the applicant did not prove he was prejudiced by trial counsels deficient performance in failing to preserve an issue at trial holding that the failure to recognize every possible legal argument did not render counsels performance constitutionally deficient holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument holding that counsel does not render deficient performance in failing to predict what was not yet a certain holding and where at the relevant time the legal principle at issue was unsettled