### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS T E N T H C IRC U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. DE BO RR AH E L L E N HUDD Y, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1037 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - W Y- 7 4 8 - CB) ( C ol or ado)



### ORDER Fi l ed J une 19, 2006 B efor e HA RTZ , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D ebor ah H uddyfi l ed a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng and pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng en banc , chal l engi ng por t i ons of thi s court ’ s or deri n Uni t ed Stat es v. Huddy , 164 Fed. A ppx. 693 ( 10t h C i r . J anuary20, 2006) . W e gr antM s . H uddy ’ s pet i t i on for r ehea r i ng fort he l i m i t ed purpos e of r evi s i ng footnot e 1 of the or der . I n al l other r es pect s , M s . H uddy ’ s r eques tforr ehea r i ng i s deni ed. M s . H uddy ’ s pet i t i on w as ci r cul at ed t o t he en banc cour t , and no j udge r eques t ed a pol l . T her efor e, her r eques tforr ehea r i ng en banc i s al so den i ed. O ur pri or order i s w i thd raw n, and i s- 2-

su b sti tuted w ith att ac h ed rev ised o rde r. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT E li sab eth A . S h u m ak er, C lerk B y : _____________________ D ep u ty C lerk

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e19,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. DE BO RR AH E L L E N HUDD Y, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1037 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - W Y- 7 4 8 - CB) ( C ol or ado)



### ORDER B efor e HA RTZ , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D ebor ah H uddybr i ngs t hi s act i on t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of her28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on s eeki ng t o vaca t e herconvi ct i on on the gr ounds of i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 , an d d e ter m in e th a t re a so n a b le ju rists w o u ld n o t fin d d e b a tab le th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f M s . H u d d y ’s h a b e a s p e titio n . Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) . T her efor e, pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) , w e deny M s. H u d d ya c erti fica te of ap p ea labili ty(C O A ) t o ch all en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s ru lin g , an d d ism iss h e r a p p e a l. M s . H uddyw as i ndi ct ed on numer ous count s of w i r e fr aud, m ai l fr aud, and m oneyl aunder i ng. She pr ocee ded t o tr i al , w her e s he w as found gui l tyof al l t he- 2-

count s agai ns ther . She w as s ent ence d t o for ty - s i x m onths of i m pr i s onm entand or der ed t o payr es t i tut i on. O n di r ectappea l , M s . H uddyuns ucce s s ful l yar gued h e r c o n v ic tio n s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d d u e to c u m u la tiv e e rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Huddy , 62 Fed. A ppx. 903 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . H ow ever , w e vac at ed and r emanded h e r s e n te n c e w ith re s p e c t to th e re s titu tio n o rd e r. Id. at* 2- 3. I n her§ 2255 pet i t i on, M s . H uddyar gued herconvi ct i on s houl d be vac at ed b ec au se h er tri al co u n sel w as in effe cti v e d u ri n g p re-tr ial p roc ee d ing s. In par t i cul ar , s he al l eged he rt r i al couns el fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e ornegot i at e the pos s i bi l i t yof a pl ea ba r gai n, fai l ed t o advi s e herof the r i s ks of goi ng t o tr i al , and fa ile d to in fo rm h e r o f a p o s s ib le p le a b a rg a in o ffe re d b yth e p ro s e c u tio n . E n g a g i n g i n t h e e s t a b l i s h e d a n a l ys i s r e q u i r e d b y Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U . S . 6 6 8 (19 8 4 ), the d istri ct co u rtd ispo sed o f e ac h o f M s. H u d d y ’s claim s. It s ubs equent l ydecl i ned t o gr anta C O A . A l though M s . H uddyhas nots ubm i t t ed an expl i ci tappl i cat i on fora C O A as r equi r ed by28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) , w e cons true h e r n o tic e o f

a p p e a l a n d a c c o m p a n y in g b ri e f a s a C O A a p p lic a tio n . See F ED . R. A PP . P . 2 2 (b)(2 ). A C O A can i s s ue onl y“i f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A pet i t i oner sa tisfies th is s tan d a rd b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t ju rists o f re a so n c o u ld d isa g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s o r th a t ju rists c o u ld concl ude the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d- 3-

fur t her . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (2 0 0 3 ); Sl ack , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 8 4 .

“ T h e C O A d e ter m in a tio n u n d e r § 2 2 5 3 (c ) re q u ire s a n o v e rv iew o f th e c laim s in t he habe as pet i t i on and a ge ner al as s es s m entof thei rm er i t s . ” Mi l l e r - El , 53 7 U. S. at336. “Thi s t hr es hol d i nqui r ydoes notr equi r e ful l cons i der at i on of the fa ctual orl egal bas es adduce d i n s uppor tof the cl ai m s . I n fac t , the s t atut e forbi ds i t . ” Id. I n appl y i ng fora C O A , M s . H uddyi s notr equi r ed t o pr ove the mer i t s of her cas e, buts he mustdemonstr at e “s om ethi ng m or e than the abs ence of fr i vol i tyor t he exi s t ence of m er e good fa i t h on [her ] . . . part . ” Id . at338 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W i t h t hes e pr i nci pl es i n m i nd, w e have car eful l yr evi ew ed M s. H u d d y ’s brief, the re co rd o f th ese p roc ee d ing s, an d the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er. In so d o ing , w e d o n o t fi n d d eb atab le th e d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f M s. H u d d y ’s pet i t i on forhabea s r el i ef. T he di s t r i ctcour thel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng atw hi ch M s . H uddyand her t r i a l a t t o r n e y t e s t i fi e d , g i v i n g t h e c o u r ta n o p p o r tu n i ty t o a s s e s s th e i rc r e d i b i l i t y. I n r ej ect i ng M s . H uddy ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s , the di s tr i ct cour tfi r s tnot ed ther e w as no m er i tt o heras s er t i on thathercouns el w as i neffect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o ini t i at e plea nego t i at i on s. T he co urtfou nd that M s. H uddyhad r epea t edl yas s ert ed heri nnocenc e, for cef ul l yt ol d heratt or neys he w as noti nt er es t ed i n anypl ea ne got i at i ons , and cl ai m ed s he w ant ed an a t t orneyw ho w oul d t ake he rcas e t o t r i al . T he di s tr i ctcourtfur thernot ed thateven i f her att o rne y ’s ac ti o n s h ad so m eh o w b ee n d efici en t un d er Str i ckland , M s. H u d d ystill- 4-

w oul d be unabl e t o es t abl i s h t hatheratt or ney ’ s per form ance pr ej udi ced he runder t he s t andar d s etfor t h i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B oone , 6 2 F . 3 d 3 2 3 , 3 2 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). M s. H u d d yc o u ld n o t sh o w th e p ro se c u tio n w a s in ter e ste d in e n ter in g in to pl ea ne got i at i ons , t he courtr et ai ned di s cr et i on as t o w hethert o acc eptanys uch pl ea, and i tw as notguar ant eed thatM s . H uddy ’ s s ent ence w oul d have be en any lo w e r a s a re s u lt o f

a p le a b a rg a in . Id. T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s w as s i m i l arr egar di ng M s . H uddy ’ s cl ai m that herat t or neyfai l ed t o i nform herof the r i s ks of goi ng t o tr i al . T he courtpoi nt ed t o a var i etyof evi dence i ndi cat i ng M s . H uddy ’ s att orneyi nform ed herof s uch r i s ks , al ong w i t h evi dence of M s . H uddy ’ s ow n know l edge s pr i ngi ng fr om s epar at e cr i m i nal char ges forw hi ch s he had pr evi ous l yent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eementw i t h t he governm ent . T he courtal s o not ed thatM s . H uddyhad bee n i n fo r m e d b y t h e c o u r ti t s e l f o f t h e r i s k s a t t e n d a n tt o g o i n g t o tr i a l . C o n s e q u e n t l y, anyal l eged de fi ci encyon t he partof heratt orneyw as notpr ej udi ci al . Fi nal l y , t he cour tr ej ect ed M s . H uddy ’ s cl ai m thathercouns el fai l ed t o i nform herof a pos s i bl e pl ea ba r gai n offe rfr om the pr os ecut i on. T he r ecor d cl ear l yes t abl i s hed th a t n o s u c h o ffe r e x is te d . H a v in g re v iew e d th e c o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g M s. H u d d y ’s § 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n in l i ghtof the s t andar ds l ai d outi n Mi l l e r - Eland Sl ack , w e c o n c lu d e th a t re a so n a b le j ur i s t s w oul d notdebat e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng. A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M s.O n appea l , M s . H uddyas s er t ed addi t i onal cl ai m s as t o the i neffect i ve 1 as s i s t ance of hercouns el , as w el l as an ent i r el ynew char ge cl ai m i ng s he w as deni ed a he ar i ng bya det ache d and neutr al j udge i n the cour s e of the deni al of her § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n . Be c a u s e M s . Hu d d yd i d n o tr a i s e t h e s e a r g u me n t s b e l o w, we d e e m th e m w a iv e d . See Koch v. Koch Indus . , Inc. , 2 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 3 9 (1 0 th C i r . 2000) ( fai l ur e t o t i m el ys eek di s qual i fi cat i on of j udge on gr ounds of bi as w a iv e s is su e o n a p p e a l); Uni t ed Stat es v. St enz el , 4 9 F . 3 d 6 5 8 , 6 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1995) ( fai l ur e t o m ake t i m el yobj ect i on on r ecus al ques t i on w ai ves i s s ue on appea l ) . I n anyevent , w e have r evi ew ed the tr ans cr i ptof the evi dent i aryhear i ng a n d a re n o t p e rsu a d e d it sh o w s b ias o n th e p a rt o f th e d istric t co u rt.

- 5- H uddy ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS h e r a p p e a l. 1 S UBM I TT ED F OR THE C OURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge