a reasonable time. After the motions filing date, the D.C. Circuit rejected the reasoning of these circuit courts and held that the police had to obtain a warrant to use a GPS tracker to monitor a defendant for 28 days. See United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C.Cir.2010). Considering the majority of circuit courts that addressed the issue held that no warrant was required for a GPS device, counsel’s decision not to file a motion to suppress was not “objectively unreasonable.” That the Su preme Court ultimately reached the opposite conclusion in United States v. Jones, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012), more than one year after Dray-ton’s plea, does not render counsel’s performance “objectively unreasonable.” See Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1052 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we DENY Drayton’s application
holding that failure to predict future law or to anticipate arguments that blossomed after trial is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel claims holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate changes in law holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel argument premised on counsels failure to anticipate apprendi would be untenable