‘beyond debate.’ ” Id. Furthermore, even if those Tenth Circuit cases were sufficiently factually similar to this one (which we have shown they are not), we cannot agree that they would have obliged Defendants, in conducting a reasonable further investigation, to take the two steps the district court suggested. For example, had Defendants interviewed the mother, they would have potentially gained—at most—testimony from the mother concerning whether the hydroco-done was obtained pursuant to the thirteen- or fourteen-month-old prescription. Even assuming that she would have told them that Plaintiff had acquired the pills with that prescription, Defendants would not have been required to refrain from arresting Plaintiff solely based on her statements. Cf. Romero, 45 F.3d at 1476 (<HOLDING>); Munday v. Johnson, 257 Fed.Appx. 126, 134
holding counsels failure to investigate alibi witness and eyewitnesses to the crime amounted to constitutionally deficient performance holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi defense claim because the available testimony provided at best an incomplete alibi as the testimony still allowed for a two to threehour window for the defendant to commit the murder holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that officers failure to talk to asserted alibi witnesses did not constitute a violation of the defendants constitutional rights holding that officers not required to investigate arrestees alibi witnesses before arresting him