FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 3, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 10161 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo s . 0 5 - 2 0 3 7 9 - CV- DLG & 0 2 - 2 0 7 6 3 CR - DLG A N T O N I O J O N E 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 3, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A nt oni o J one s , apr o s e f e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of2

h is m o tio n to v a c a te , s e t a s id e , o rc o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e , w h ic h w a s f ile d p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . J o n e s , w h o is s e rv in g a2 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , f ile d th e in s ta n t § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , a lle g in g th a t: ( 1 ) h is c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e w e r e i l l e ga l be c aus e the i ndi c tm e nta nd j uryi ns truc t i ons i n hi s c a s e f

a i l e d t o s t a t e a n of

f e ns e unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) , a nd be c aus e the § 9 24 (e ) e l em ent s w er e notpres ent ed t o the j ury; (2) the di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed bys e nt e nc i ng hi m a s a n A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l ( “ A C C ” ) be c aus e one of hi s pr i or conv i ct i on s w as no ta qual i fy i ng predi ca t e c on vi ct i on ; and (3) hi s tri al coun se l w as i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h J one s ’ s s t a ndi ng a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng a nd t o pr e s e ntr e butt a l w i tne s s e s a ttr i a l . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge i s s ue d a r e port , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d, r e c om m e ndi ng tha tJ one s ’ s § 2255 m ot i on b e d e n ie d . S p e c if

ic a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d , in te ra lia , th a t J o n e s ’s f ir s t c la im w a s pr oc e dur a l l yba rr e d a s ( 1) he ha d r a i s e d the i s s ue w i th us on di r e c tappe a l , a nd w e ha d rul e d a ga i ns thi m , a nd ( 2) he di d nota l l e ge ac ha nge i n the l a w or c ir c u m s ta n c e s to ju s tif

yr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e c la im , a n d th a t J o n e s ’s s e c o n d c la im w a s b a rr e d b e c au s e h e w a s s e n te n c e d p r o p e r lya s a n A C C . J o n e s f ile d o b je c tio n s to th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o rt, a lle g in g th a t th e m a g is tr a te

“ t ot a l l y di s r e ga r de d” B l a ke l yv. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 1603

L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , a nd S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 544 U . S . 13, 125 S . C t . 1254, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) , a nd a r gui ng tha t , i n l i ghtof thos e c a s e s , he c oul d notbe s e n te n c e d a s a n A C C b e c au s e th e in d ic tm e n t d id n o t a lle g e f a c ts s u f f ic ie n t to j ust i fythe enhancem ent , and h e di d n otadm i tt o such fac t s. T he di stri ctcourt de ni e d thos e obj e c t i ons . S ubs e que nt l y , the c ourtgr a nt e d ac e rt i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty( “ C O A ” ) a s t o the i s s ue s tha tJ one s r a i s e d i n l i ghtof B l a ke l ya nd B o o k e r . O n ap p eal , Jo n es fi rstarg u es th ath e rai sed B l ak el y an d B o o k er i ssu es i n h i s § 2 25 5 m ot i on , bu tdi d n otci t e t o the ca se s s peci fi ca l l y bec ause the § 2 25 5 form i ns truc t e d hi m nott o a r gue orc i t e c a s e l a w . N e xt , he a s s e rt s tha t , c ontr a ryt o the g o v ern m en t ’ s assert i o n s co n cern i n g p ro ced u ral b ar, w e d i d n o tco n si d er th ese cl ai m s on d i re ctappeal , w here w e a dd re ss ed a c l ai m base d o n A pp re nd i v. N ew Jersey, 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t . 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 (2 0 0 0 ), b ecau se h i s case w a s de c i de d pr i ort o the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i ons i n B l a ke l y , B ooke r , a nd S hepard. Jones then argues the subst ance of hi s c l ai m w as thatB oo ker r equi re s thatthe “ se ri ou s drug o ff ense ” r equi re m entof the A C C st atut e m ustbe prov en b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t, w h ic h th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to d o in h is c a s e w ith r e g a r d to h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . H e a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h e d id n o t h a v e th e r e q u is ite nu m ber of pri or conv i ct i on s t o q ual i fyas an A C C . H e a ss ert s that , because he w as4

un abl e t o com m un i ca t e w i th h i s a tt orney duri ng the appeal proces s, hi s c l ai m w as no tprocedural l y barre d b y hi s f ai l ure t o rai se i ton di re ctappeal . F i nal l y, Jones ar gu es hi s i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s, re qu es t i ng thatw e hear them because he m ade the neces sarysubst ant i al show i ng of a deni al of a c on st i tut i on al r ig h t. Is sues ou t si de of the sc op e of the C O A ar e notprop er l y bef ore us. M urray v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 145 F . 3d 1249, 1251 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T he r e f or e , onl ythe B o o k er/B lak ely c laim is p ro p er ly b ef o re u s. W h en re v iew in g th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of a§ 2255 m ot i on, w e r e vi e w que s t i ons of l a w de novo a nd que s t i ons of f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r . V a r e lav . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 0 0 F .3 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 7 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e rt. d en i ed , 1 2 6 S . C t . 3 1 2 (2 0 0 5 ). In V arel a, w e h el d th at“ B o o k er’ s [an d B l ak el y’ s] const i tut i on al rul e f

al l s s qu ar el y und erthe ca t egory of new rul es of cr i m i nal pr oc e dur e tha tdo notappl yr e tr oa c t i ve l yt o § 2255 c a s e s on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . ” I d. a t 6 8 6 . B e c au s e w e h a v e h e ld th a t B la k e lya n d B o o k e rd o n o t ap p lyr e tr o a c tiv e lyto c a s e s on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc om m i tr e ve r s i bl e e rr orby d en yi n g Jo n es’ s m o t i o n w i th o u tsp eci fi cal l y ad d ressi n g su ch cl ai m s. A cco rd i n g l y, w e a f f i rm.J ones’s re quest for oral argument is denied. 1 5 A F F I R M E D . 1