FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JULY 14, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 11734 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 2 6 1 8 - CV- HLM - 1 & 9 1 - 0 0 2 8 9 - CR - HLM D E R R I C K R I V E R S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( J ul y14, 2005) O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T O F TH E U N I TED STA TES Be f o r e AN DERS ON , BARKET T an dW I LS ON , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s . BARKET T, C i rcu i tJu d g e, co n cu rri n g sp eci al l y, i n w h i ch W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g e, j o i n s. P E R C U R I A M:2

T hi s c as e i s bef

ore the C ou rtfor c on si dera t i on i n l i gh tof John son v . U ni t ed S tates, 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 5 7 1 (2 0 0 5 ). W e p re v io u sly a ff irm ed th e d istrict co u rt’s d i s mi s s a l o f

Ri v e r s ’ p e t i t i o n f

o raw r i to f

h ab e a s c o rp u s a s u n t i me l y . Th e Su p r e me C o u rt th e n v a c a te d o u rd e c is io n a n dr e m a n d e dth e c a s e to u s f o rc o n s id e r a tio n in l i g h to f Jo h n so n . R i v ers v . U n i t ed S t at es, 1 2 5 S . C t . 1 8 2 2 (2 0 0 5 ) (m em . ). B ecau se J o h n s o n d ic ta te s th a t R iv e r s f a ile dto e x e r c is e d u e d ilig e n c e in a tta c k in g th e s ta te c onvi c t i on tha tw a s us e d t o e nha nc e hi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e , w e a ga i n a f f i rm the d e n ia l o f h is h ab e a s p e titio n . B AC KG RO UN D I n 1996, R i ve r s pl e d gui l tyt o one c ountof c ons pi r a c yt o pos s e s s c oc a i ne ba s e w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) a nd 846. T he P r e s e n te n c e I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o rt ( “P S I ” ) a s s e s s e df iv e c r im in a l h is to ryp o in ts a g a in s t R iv e r s : th r e e p o in ts f o ra1 9 8 7 s ta te c o u rt d ru g c o n v ic tio n ; a n dtw o p o in ts f orc om m i tt i ng the f

e de r a l of f e ns e w hi l e on pa r ol e f

ortha ts t a t e c onvi c t i on, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(d). W i th fi ve cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, the P S I pl ac ed R i vers i n C ri m i nal H i st ory C at egory I II . A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtadj ust ed R i vers ’ offe nse l evel , bu tadop t ed the P S I’ s f i nd i ng s r egar di ng R i vers ’ cr i m i nal h isto ry ca teg o ry , i m p o sin g a s en ten ce o f 1 3 5 m o n th s. T h e d istrict co u rt’s j ud gm entw as ent er ed on F ebruary6, 19 97 . B ec ause R i vers di d n otpu rs ue a di re ct3

appe a l , hi s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l on F e brua ry17, 1997. O n A p r il 1 6 , 2 0 0 1 , f

o u ry e a r s a f

te rh is f e d e r a l c o n v ic tio n b e c a m e f in a l, R i ve r s f i l e d as t a t e pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus i n F ul t on C ountyS upe r i or C ou rt(the “ st at e c ou rt ”) , se eki ng t o v ac at e the 19 87 drug conv i ct i on thatse rved as th e b asi s fo r h i s fed eral sen t en ce en h an cem en t . T h e st at e co u rtg ran t ed R i v ers’ pe t i t i on on M a y3, 2002, va c a t i ng the c onvi c t i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtr e l i e d upon t o enh ance hi s f

eder al se nt ence . R iv e r s th e n f

ile d af e d e r a l h ab e a s m o tio n , p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , in the di s tr i c tc ourton S e pt e m be r23, 2002. B e c aus e thi s c i r c ui tha d noty e trul e d on th e tim e lin e s s o f

s u c h p e titio n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d o p te dth e r e a s o n in g in B r a c k e tt v. U ni t ed S t at es , 27 0 F . 3d 60 , 68 (1stC i r. 20 01 ), w hi ch hel d thatthe on e- ye ar§ 22 55 , ¶6 (4) l i m i t at i on s per i od begi ns t o run on the dat e w hen the defendantl earned ors houl d ha ve l e a rne d the f a c t s s upport i ng hi s c l a i m t o va c a t e the s t a t e c onvi c t i on – n otthe dat e on w hi ch the defendantl earned thathi s s t at e c on vi ct i on s w er e v a c a te d . W e g ran t eda cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty o n th e q u est i o n o f w h eth er R i v ers’ § 2 25 5 m ot i on w as t i m e- barr ed. B ef ore w e i ss ued an o pi ni on i n the ca se , ho w ever , a n o th e rp a n e l o f

th is c o u rt d e c id e dJ o h n s o n v . U n ite dS ta te s , 3 4 0 F .3 d1 2 1 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ). T he panel i n Joh nson agre ed w i th B ra ckett ’ s r ea soni ng , and h el d that4

the va c a turof

as t a t e c onvi c t i on i s nota“ f a c ts upport i ng the c l a i m ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of

§ 2255, ¶6( 4) . I d. a t1226. R e c ogni z i ng tha tw e w e r e bound bythe John son p anel , w e a ff

i rm ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng thatR i vers ’ pet i t i on w as t i m e - ba rr e d. S e e R i ve r s , 91 F e d. A ppx. 655 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . R i ve r s the n f i l e d a pe t i t i on f orw r i tof

c e rt i or a r i , w hi c h the S upr e m e C ourtgr a nt e d, va c a t i ng our o p in io n a n d r e m a n d in g th e c a s e f o rc o n s id e r a tio n in lig h t o f th e iro p in io n in J ohns on. S e e R i ve r s , 125 S . C t . 1822. DI S CUS S I ON H ab e a s p e titio n s b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t to § 2 2 5 5 a r e s u b je c t to ao n e - y e a rs ta tu te of l i m i t a t i ons . 28 U . S . C . § 2255, ¶6. I n r e l e va ntpa rt , tha tl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od runs f r o m “th e d a te o n w h ic h th e f a c ts s u p p o rtin g th e c la im o rc la im s p r e s e n te dc o u ld ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d thr ough the e xe r c i s e of due di l i ge nc e . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2255, ¶ 6 ( 4 ) . I n J o h n s o n , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt m a d e c le a rth a t th e v a c a tu ro f as ta te c onvi c t i on doe s qua l i f

ya s a“ f a c t ” unde r§ 2255, ¶6( 4) , a nd tha tthe l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od thus be gi ns t o run on the da t e on w hi c h the pe t i t i one rr e c e i ve d not i c e of the s ta te c o u rt v a c a tu r . S e e J o h n s o n , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 1 5 7 9 - 8 0 . H ow ever , John son al so re qu i re s that§ 2 25 5 p et i t i on er s s ho w du e di l i gence i n obtai ni ngthe va c a turof the i rpr e di c a t e s t a t e c ourtc onvi c t i on i n or de rt o r e l yon the P a r a gr aph F ourl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. S e e i d. a t1580- 81. D i l i ge nc e i s s how n by5

th e p e titio n e r ’s p r o m p t f ilin g o f as ta te h ab e a s p e titio n , a s m e a s u r e df r o m th e d a te thatj ud gm entw as ent er ed on the enhanced feder al se nt ence . Id. at15 81 . W here the pet i t i on eri n Joh nson fi l ed hi s s t at e habeas pet i t i on m ore than three ye ar s f o llo w in g e n tryo f

ju d g m e n t, h is a c tio n s “f e ll f a rs h o rt o f

r e a s o n ab le d ilig e n c e in chal l engi ng the st at e c on vi ct i on . ” I d. at15 82 . M oreover, the C ou rthel d that J ohns on’ s e xpl a na t i ons f orthe de l a y( na m e l y , hi s l a c k of s ophi s t i c a t i on a nd p ro se s ta tu s ) d idn o t e x c u s e h is d ila to r in e s s . I d . W ith ad e la yg r e a te rth a n th r e e y e a r s in se ek in g state c o u rt re li ef an d w ith o u t an y e x cu sab le b as is fo r th e d elay , Jo h n so n ’s fa i l ure t o exerci se du e di l i gence re nd er ed hi s habea s pet i t i on un t i m el y und er§ 2255, ¶6( 4) . I d. I n R iv e r s ’ c a s e , th e s ta te c o u rt v a c a te dh is p r io rc o n v ic tio n o n M a y3 , 2 0 0 2 . J ohns on di c t a t e s tha tthi s qua l i f i e d a s a“ f

a c ts upport i ng the [ habe a s ] c l a i m ” a nd th a t R iv e r s h a d o n e y e a rf r o m r e c e iv in g n o tic e o f th e v a c a tu rto f

ile h is f e d e r a l § 22 55 pet i t i on . B ec ause R i vers fi l ed hi s pet i t i on on S ept em ber 23, 20 02 , he has c le a r lys a tis f

ie d J o h n s o n ’s f

ir s t r e q u ir e m e n t. N on ethel es s, l i ke the pet i t i on eri n Joh nson , R i vers has f ai l ed t o sat i sf

y J ohns on’ s s e c ond r e qui r e m e nt : the e xe r c i s e of due di l i ge nc e i n s e e ki ng va c a turof the st at e c ou rtconv i ct i on . T he di stri ctcourtent er ed j ud gm enton R i vers ’ enhanced f e de r a l s e nt e nc e on F e brua ry6, 1997. R i ve r s di d notf i l e hi s s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on6

u n til A p r il 1 6 , 2 0 0 1 –m o r e th a n f o u ry e a r s a f

te rju d g m e n t w a s e n te r e do n h is fe dera l se nt ence . T he S up re m e C ou rti n Joh nson hel d thatw here the pet i t i on er w a ite d m o r e th a n th r e e y e a r s a f te re n tryo f

ju d g m e n t to f

ile h is s ta te p e titio n , h e d id n o tactw i th reaso n ab l e d i l i g en ce. S ee Jo h n so n , 1 2 5 S . C t . at1 5 8 2 . W h ere R i v ers’ s t a t e va c a turf

i l i ng s uf f e r e d f r om a n e ve n l onge rde l a y , w e a r e bound t o c onc l ude thathe si m i l ar l y f

ai l ed t o actw i th rea sonabl e di l i gence. I n hi s s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f , R i ve r s a r gue s tha tno due di l i ge nc e de t e rm i na t i on can b e m ade w i tho utre m andi ng the ca se t o the di stri ctcourtfor an evi dent i ary h ea rin g . O n th is p o in t, R iv er s a rg u es th at u n sp ec ified d elay s in th e s tate cler k ’s r e tr i e va l of

r e c or ds ne c e s s a ryf

orhi s s t a t e habe a s f

i l i ng, a l ong w i th hi s l a c k of educat i on , excuse any del ay . W e a gree thatthe i nd i vi du al i ze d, fa ctual nature of a due di l i ge nc e de t e rm i na t i on w i l l i nde e d of t e n r e qui r e J ohns on c a s e s t o be r e m a nde d f

orf a c tua l de ve l opm e nt . S e e D r e w v. D e p’ tof C orr . , 297 F . 3d 1278, 1283 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( de t e rm i na t i on r e ga r di ng pa rty ’ s di l i ge nc e i s af i ndi ng of f a c ts ubj e c tt o r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr or ) ; s e e a l s o A r on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 291 F . 3d 708, 71 2 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ the du e di l i gence i nq ui ryi s an i ndi vi dua l i z e d one tha tm us tt a ke i nt o a c c ountthe [ habe a s pe t i t i one r ’ s ] c ondi t i ons o f co n fi n em en t ”) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). H o w ev er, R i v ers’ supp l em ent al bri ef

fa i l s t o setou tj ustw hatef fort s he m ade t o o bt ai n the neces sary7

r e c o r d s o rto e x p la in w h a t a m o u n t o f tim e lap s e is f

a ir lya ttr ib u tab le to th e s ta te c le rk ’s d e la y . M o r e o v e r , w h ile R iv e r s ’ la c ko f e d u c a tio n m a yh a v e d e la y e dh is ef fort s t o v ac at e hi s s t at e c on vi ct i on , the John son cou rtre j ec t ed si m i l argrou nd s a s an excuse f

or del ay , re i t er at i ng that“ procedural i gn orance [ has never been a c c e p te d ] a s a n e x c u s e f o rp r o lo n g e din a tte n tio n w h e n as ta tu te 's c le a rp o lic yc a lls f orpr om ptne s s . ” J ohns on, 125 S . C t . a t1582. A l though J ohns on m a ke s c l e a rtha tR i ve r s pr ope r l yf i l e d hi s § 2255 pe t i t i on w i thi n one y e a rof

r e c e i vi ng not i c e of

the s t a t e c ourt ’ s va c a turof hi s pr i or conv i ct i on , R i vers ’ del ayi n see ki ng st at e habeas re l i ef , al on g w i th h i s f

ai l ure t o set f orth s uf f i c i e ntgr ounds tha tc oul d e xc us e hi s de l a y , pr e c l ude s af i ndi ng tha the e xe r c i s e d due di l i ge nc e . A f t e rc ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof J ohns on, w e thus a f

f i rm the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f R i v ers’ p et i t i o n b ased o n R i v ers’ fai l u re t o ex erci se du e di l i gence. AF F I RME D.8

B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e, concurri ng spec i al l y, i n w hi ch W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e, j o i n s: I jo in th e c o u rt’s o p in io n . I w rite se p ar ately to ad d re ss th e g o v ern m en t’ s a r g u m e n t th a t R iv e r s ’ ap p e a l w a iv e rp r e c lu d e s a n yc o lla te r a l a tta c k . R i vers ’ pl eaagre em enti ncl ud ed a provi si on thatw ai ved h i s r i gh t s t o app ea l h is s e n te n c e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 o rto ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e o n a n yo th e rg r o u n d . H o w ev er, n ei th er R i v ers’ p l ea ag reem en tn o r th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s p l ea co l l o q u y so m u c h a s m e n tio n e d R iv e r s ’ r ig h t to b r in g ac o lla te r a l a tta c ku n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , m u ch less in clu d ed a w aiv ero f s u ch rig h ts. I th u s r ejec t th e g o v ern m en t’ s cont ent i on thatR i vers ’ appeal shou l d b e di sm i ss ed base d o n the pres ence of an ap p e a l w a iv e r , a s R iv e r s d idn o t e x p r e s s lya n dk n o w in g lyw a iv e h is r ig h ts to col l at er al l y a tt ac k h i s s ent ence . U ni t ed S t at es v. P rui tt , 32 F . 3d 43 1, 43 2 (9th C i r. 1994) ( hol di ng tha t“ apl e aa gr e e m e ntdoe s notw a i ve the r i ghtt o br i ng a§ 2255 m ot i on unl e s s i tdoe s s o e xpr e s s l y . T he gove rnm e ntge t s w ha ti tba r ga i ns f orbut no thi ng m ore. ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. C ockerham , 23 7 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 83 (10th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t " aw a iv e ro f c o lla te r a l a tta c kr ig h ts b r o u g h t u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 is general l y e nforceabl e w here the w ai ver i s e xp re ss l y s t at ed i n the pl eaagre em ent ”) ; s e e a l s o W i l l i a m s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 396 F . 3d 1340, 1342 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng th at p etit io n erw aiv ed rig h t t o b rin g § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n w h er e th e p lea a g re em en t’ s pl a i n l a ngua ge e xpr e s s l yi nf orm e d hi m tha the w a s w a i vi ng hi s r i ghtt o br i ng a9

col l at er al att ac k).