NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0023n.06 No. 04-2213 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

United States of Am eric a, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. K e it h De lsho n Ad am s, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEF OR E: M e r r it t, G ibbo ns, and R og e r s, Ci r c uitJudg e s. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The de fenda nt, Keith Adams, has filed a noti ce of appe al dated Se pte mbe r 2 3, 20 04 , s ole ly fr om a jud g me nt en te re d on his co nv ic tio n an d sen te nc e a ft e r a j ur y tr ia l. (See doc ument #43 of t he R ecor d on Appea l.) The docket sheet contains no notice of a ppeal f rom any other o r d e r . H is a

p p e a l p r e s e n ts o n ly an in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e o f c o u n s e l c la im a s to the perf ormanc e of c ounsel at trial. As we explain below, the rec ord is incomplete on this claim and we have no basis on this re cord to f ind ine ffe ctive assistance of counsel. Finding no err or on the c urre nt

rec ord, we aff

irm the conviction and judg ment enter ed by the di strict court on Septembe r 16, 2004. We make no ruling reg ardingthe merits of Ada ms’ ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claims. A jury found Adams guilty

of being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) a

nd he wa s sentenc ed to 77 months imprisonment. Despite filing a tim ely notice of a pp e a l shor

tly a ft e r his c on vic tio n in 2004 , his ap pe a l wa s d ism iss e d f or wa nt o f p ro se c uti on

inNo. 04-2213

U.S. v. Adam s

Ba rring“extraordinar

y circ umstances,” motions att a c k in g the constitutionalit y

of a se ntence 1 filed pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are g ener ally dismiss ed by the di strict court if the direc t appea l is not final. I n this case, a timely notice of a

ppeal ha d been ma de, but the appe al had be en dismissed for wa nt of prosec ution. The district court noted that a motion to reinstate the a ppeal ha d been f

iled but not y et ruled upon by this Court. Memorandum Opinion and Orde r De ny ing Motion to Vac ate, No. 06-c v-10518, No. 03-cr-80615 (E.D. Mi ch. filed Apr. 30, 2007) (found in the ROA, Vol. 1, p. 152). The district c ourt made no me ntion of any “extraordinar

y circ umstances” that would war rant re n d er i n g a j u d gm en to na S ec t i o n2 2 5 5 m o t i o nwh i l e t h e d i re ct ap p ea l wa s s t i l l p en d i n g. Rule 3. Appea l as of Rig ht--How T aken 2 (a ) F ili ngthe No tic e of Ap pe a l. (1) An appe al per

mitted by law as of rig ht from a district cour t to a c ourt of a pp e a ls m ay

be take n o nly

by fi lin g a no tic e of a pp e a l w ith the district cler

k within the time allowed by Rule 4.

. . . -2- 2005 and 2007. On both occ asions his appea l was re instated. On Februa ry 7, 2006, defe ndant filed

a p r o s e m o t i o n in the district court to vac ate his sentenc e pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255 based on ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel. The district c ourt denied the motion as to defe ndant’s trial c ounsel and dec lined to reviewthe issue of inef fec tive assistance of appe llate counse l be cause defe ndant’s appellate counsel wa s repr esenting him on appeal at that time. United States v. Adams , No. 03-c r- 1 80615 (E.D. Mich. A

pr. 30, 2007). A revie w of the docket sheets in both the criminal and civil ca ses below does not indicate that an a ppeal ha s been taken fr om the denial of the Section 2255 motion on April 30, 2007. Ther efor e, pursua nt to Fed. R. App. P. 3, we have no jurisdiction to reviewthe 2 denial of the Section 2255 Motion to Vacate and may only revie w the appe al from the September 16 , 2 00 4, jud g me nt. We must alway s consider our jurisdiction first a

nd may not hear a ca use over which we have

n o ju r is d ic tion. See St e e l Co . v . Ci tiz e ns for a B e tte r E

nv iro nm e nt, 523 U.S. 83 (1998). F eder alNo. 04-2213

U.S. v. Adam s

-3- Ap p ell ate Rule 3 is jurisdictional and it may not be waive d by

the Court. S

e e To r r es v . O a k

la nd Scave nger Co. , 48 7 U. S. 31 2, 31 7 (1 98 8); Smith v. Barry, 5 0 2 U. S

. 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 (1 9 9 2 ) ( “Ru l e 3 's dictates a re jurisdictional in nature , and their satisfaction i s a pre requisite to appe llate re view.”) (c i t i n g Torre

s, 487 U.S. at 316-17). Cf

. D il lo n v . U

n it e d S tate s , 184 F.3d 556 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (althoug h Rule 3 is jurisdictional in nature, mere err ors in f orm will not al wa y s p reclude jurisdiction). The Court in Torres c a uti on e d, “ a lth ou g h a c ourt may c on str ue the Rul e s li be ra lly

in de te rm ini ngwh e the r t

he y have be e n c omp lie d wi th, it may no t wa ive the jur isd ic tio na l r e qu ir e me nts of Rules 3 and 4, e ven for ‘g ood cause shown’ under Rule 2, if it finds that they have not be en met.” Torre s, 487 U.S. at 317. “[L ]i tiga nts are c harg ed with the re sponsibili ty for c omply ing w ith the Fede ral Rules of Appellate Proc edure ,” Maerk i v. W ilson , 12 8 F .3 d 10 05 , 10 08 (6 th Cir

. 19 97 ), and we c ann ot e xcu se noncompliance

. Torres , 4 87 U. S. at 31 7. “ Ra ther p lai nl y , ce rt a in r ule s are de e me d s uf

fi c ie ntl y

c ri tic a l in a vo idi nginc on sis te nc y , v a g ue ne ss and an unne c e ssa ry mul tip lic a tio n o f l iti g a tio n to

wa rr ant s tr ic t ob e die nc e e ve n th ou g h a pp lic ati on of th e ru le s ma y have ha rs h r e su lts in c e rt a in circ umstances.” Minority Employe es v. Tennessee Dep’ t of Employme nt Sec., 901 F.2d 1327, 1329 (6th Cir. 1990) (en banc)

. Be cause the notice of a ppeal at issue in this case was filed in Septembe r 2004, two and one- half y ear s bef o re the district court rule d on the Section 2255 Motion, and the notice of a

ppeal states only that it is from the judgme nt rende red on September 16, 2004, afte r the jury trial, we do not have jurisdiction to consider a ny other issues, including a n y arising from the Denial of the Motion to Vacate under 2255.No. 04-2213

U.S. v. Adam s

I t would appea

r that Adams’ claims ag ainst Reid conce rning the filing of the af fidavit in the 3 forf eiture action ar e more in the nature of a c ivil malpractice suit and not an ineff ective a ssistance of counse l claim under the Six th Amendment ar ising out of r epre sentation in a cr iminal case. -4- B ri e fl y , th e c ru x of Ad a ms’ c omp la int a g a ins t hi s c ouns e l is dir e c te d at hi s p re tr ia l c ouns e l, Daniel Reid. Reid first repr esente d Adams i n a civil forf eiture case where he filed a complaint for return of proper

ty that was taken from Adams’ g irlfriend’ s home during a sea rch. The complaint had an af fidavit at tache d to it purporting to be sig ned by Adams and c laiming that the pr operty taken from his g irlfriend’ s house belonge d to him. The property soug ht to be returned included g uns and ammunition. However , Adams, a c onvicted fe lon, is not permitted to own g uns or ammunition. The conviction in this case came about as a direc t r esult of the a ffidavit attac hed to the complaint filed by Re id in the c ivi l fo rf

e iture c a se . Af

te r Ad a ms w a s c ha

rg e d, Re id c on tin

ue d to re pr e se nt h im i n the c ri min a l c a se a s w e ll, bu t with dr e w an d sub sti tut e d David B ur g e ss as c ouns e l bef or e tr ia l. R e id testified at trial on behalf of Adams, stating that the affidavit attache d to the civil complaint was not signe d by Adams and that some unknown person in his offic e had sig ned the a ffidavit. To the extent the appea l can be construed as raising alleg ations of i neff ective a ssistance of counsel at trial, these cla ims are not g ener al l y co gnizable on direct a ppeal unless the r ecor d demonstrates ineffe ctive assistance of counsel on its fac e. United St ates v. Castro, 908 F.2d 85, 89 (6 th C ir .1 99 0) ; Un ite d S

tat es v . H ill , 688 F.2d 18, 21-22 (6th Cir. 1982). Ada ms’ brief sa

y s very lit tle a bo ut t he pe rf or manc e of his tr ia l c ouns e l, Da vid B ur g e ss, and his a tta c k ins te a d fo c us e s on his pr e tr ia l c ouns e l, R e id. I t is no t c le ar w he the r a n atta c k a gainst

Re id i s e ve n c og niza

ble , a s Re id wi thd re w a s tr ia l c ouns e l and

B ur g e ss w a s su

bs tit ute d b e fo re tr ia l. Th e re c or d a g a ins t B ur g e ss i s 3No. 04-2213

U.S. v. Adam s

-5- not sufficiently

develope d to permit us to review the claims. Un ite d S tat es v . J on es, 489 F.3d 243, 255 (6th Cir. 2007). On appe al, Adams points to seven acts or omissions as the basis for his ine ffe ctive assistanc e of counse l claim: (1) Reid fa iled to supervise his staff or re view the c omplaint and aff idavit before the y we re fi le d in

the state fo rf

e iture a c tio n a

nd, as a res ult , s ub mit te d a n in c ri min a tin g a ff

ida vit purportedly

signe d by Ad am s (A dams’ B r. 12); (2) Reid then failed to c orre ct this error by submitt ing a

n aff idavit signe d by Adams t hat disavowe d any claim to the g uns (Adams’ B r. 13); (3) Re id r e pr e se nte d A dams at th e ou tse t of the fe de ra l cr imi na l pro c e e din g s des pit e a c on fl ic t of

int e re st (Adams’ Br . 14); (4) w hile repr esenting Adams duringthe fede ral criminal proc eeding s, Reid filed tw o in c omp le te pr e -t

ri a l mo tio ns (A dams’ B r. 14 ); (5 ) R e id b e c a me the ke y gover nme nt w itn e ss ag ainst Adams at trial (Adams’ Br

. 12); (6) neither Reid nor B urg ess re tained a ha ndwriting expert to testify that Adams had not sig ned the incr iminating af fidavit (Adams’ Br . 15); (7) B urg ess did not

re qu e st a n a djo ur nme nt t o p re pa

re fo r t ri a l a ft e r h e too k ove r fr om Re id as Ad a ms’ c ouns e l ( Ad a ms’ Br . 16). Adams’ inef

fec tive assistance of counse l cl ai m rests larg ely on Reid’s ac ts and omissions while re prese nting Ada

ms in the state forf

eiture a ction. But Ada

ms cannot cha llenge his fede ral

c ri min a l c on vic tio n o n th e ba sis of Re id’ s a lle g e dly ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e wh ile re pr e se nti ngAd a ms in that ear lier st ate civil litigation. “[T] he right t o the ef fec tive assistance of counse l is recog nized

no t f or its ow n s a ke , b ut b e c a

us e of the e ff e c t it ha s o n th e a

bil it y of th e accu se d to re c e ive a fa ir tr ia l. A bs e nt s ome e ff

e c t of c ha lle ng e d c on du c t on

the re lia bil ity of the tr ial p ro c e ss, the Sixth Amendment g uara

ntee is g ener al l y n o t implicated.” Un ite d S tat es v . Cr on ic , 466 U.S. 648, 658No. 04-2213

U.S. v. Adam s

-6- (1984). Ada

ms has not a lleg ed that Reid’s acts or omissions in the state forf eiture a ction aff

ecte d the fa irness or r eliability

of the fe dera l criminal trial. Adams ha d the opportuni ty to, and did, asser

t Rei d ’s fa u l t y representation during the state for feiture action as a defe nse to the fe dera l criminal char g e. Althoug h Adams could have ar g u ed on the instant direct a ppeal that the e vidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction in light of Reid’s testimony , Adams has not r aised that issue. Reid’s ac t of testify i n g d u ri n g Adams’ c riminal trial also ca nnot provide the ba sis for an ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im. Re id r e sig ne d a s A dams’ c ouns e l be fo re the c a se we nt t o trial; thus, Reid no longe r re prese nted Adams whe n Reid took the witness stand. Moreove r, as the Gover nment’s brief

points out (Gov’t’s Br . 7), Reid was not called as a witness by the Gover

nment but rather testified as Ada

ms’ sole witness during the def ense c ase- in-chief

. Wit h respe ct to the re maining a cts and omissions, although they arguably inv o l v e Reid’s repr esentation of Adams in the fe dera l criminal p ro ceeding s, the rec ord on direc t appea l is not sufficie ntly

develop ed for this court to asse ss these fa ctual base s for the ine ffe ctive assistanc e of counsel c laim. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . G oo dle tt , 3 F.3d 976, 980 ( 6th Cir. 1993). Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the District Court of Septembe r 16, 2004, is aff irmed.