question was asked is not true,” Cortez’s attorneys also testified that they were surprised by the question regarding polygraph testimony and did not expect the question to be asked. In this vein, the Supreme Court has stated "[j]ust as there is no expectation that competent counsel will be a flawless strategist or tactician, an attorney may not be faulted for a reasonable miscalculation or lack of foresight or for failing to prepare for what appear to be remote possibilities.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 110, 131 S.Ct. 770. Accordingly, even if we were to address this claim as a standalone issue, Cortez has failed to show that his counsel was deficient for failing to file a motion in limine regarding inadmissible polygraph evidence. See Charles v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Dodson v. Stephens, 611 Fed.Appx.
holding that the clock was tolled from the day the lastarraigned defendant appeared before a judicial officer because at that time several defendants already had filed pretrial motions and pretrial motions of some type remained pending for over two years holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions holding that pretrial motions in limine were not feasible because counsel could not have anticipated inadmissible testimony holding that counsel may well have made a reasonable tactical choice to not object to arguably inadmissible testimony holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions