T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

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

### Ju ly27,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 5179 v . No r t h e r n Di s t r i c to f Ok l a h o ma DON ALD RAY CARTE R,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . 04- C V - 794- H D C and 01- CR- 1 1 6 - HDC)

OR DER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D onal d R ayC ar t er , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p ea labili ty(C O A ) th at w o u ld allow h im to ap p ea l from the d istri ct co u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See 2 8 U. S . C. § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM r . C ar t erhas fai l ed t o m ake “ a subst anti al show i ng of the den i al of a c on st i tuti on al ri gh t , ” w e den yhis request fo r a C O A , a n d w e d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- I . Backg r ound O n J anuary10, 2002, M r . C ar t erpl eade d gui l t yt o one countof pos s es s i on o f a firearm af

ter prior co n v ict ion o f a fe lon y , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g). T he di s t r i ctcour tcal cul at ed M r . C ar t er ’ s s ent ence pur s uantt o t he A r m ed C ar eer C ri m inal A ct (A C C A ), 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (e)(1), w h ich c arries a m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence of fi ft een y ear s , and s ent ence d hi m t o 192 m ont hs im p ri s o n m e n t. M r . C ar t erent er ed hi s pl ea on the condi t i on t hathe be a l l ow ed t o appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s . O n appea l , t hi s C our taff i r m ed th e d e n ia l o f

th e m o tio n , Uni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 6 4 F ed . A p p ’x 1 0 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), an d the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtsu b seq u en tl yd en ied M r. C arter’s w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri . C ar t erv. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 0 U .S . 8 4 6 (2 0 0 3 ). M r . C ar t ert hen fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ects ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255, cl ai m i ng i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . M r . C ar t er a rg u e d th a t b o th h is tria l an d a p p e llate c o u n se l w e re in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to ch all en g e the fa ct-find ing p roc ed u re u sed b ythe d istri ct co u rtto d eterm ine M r. C ar t erw as an arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal . H e furt herar gued thatcouns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o chal l enge the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on t hatt w o pr i or O klahom a con vict i on s for s econ d-degree bu rgl arycon st i tuted “vi olentfel on i es” forpurpos es of 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 1) . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on on t he m er i t s , hol di ng t hatbeca us e C i r cui tpr ece dental l ow s di s t r i ctj udges t o m ake-3-

fac tual fi ndi ngs aboutpr i orconvi ct i ons , M r . C ar t er ’ s couns el w as noti neffect i ve fo r fa ili n g to c h a llen g e th e c o u rt’s fa c t-fin d in g p ro c e d u re . T h e c o u rt a lso h e ld t hatM r . C ar t er ’ s s econd- degr ee bur gl aryconvi ct i ons s at i s fyt he r equi r ement s of t he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ctand thatcouns el ’ s per for m ance w as notdefe ct i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ectt o t hatconcl us i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notacton t he i s s ue of w hethert o gr anta C O A , and w e dee m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o acta deni al o f a C O A . 1 0 th C ir. R . 2 2 .1 (C ). M r. C a rte r n o w p e tit io n s th is C o u rt to g ra n t h is r e q u e s tfo ra CO A. I I . C l ai m s on A ppeal T h e d en ial o f a m o ti o n fo r reli ef u n d er § 2255 m aybe appe al ed onl yi f the d istri ct co u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 )( B ). A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Id . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). I n or dert o m ake s uch a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hat th e is s u e s p re s e n te d w e re a d e q u a te to d e s e rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to p ro c e e d f u rt h e r.” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483- 84 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). I n or dert o es t abl i s h an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s uffi ci entt o w arr ant r ever s al of a c onvi ct i on ora s ent ence , a convi ct ed defendantm us ts how bot h t hat couns el ’ s per for m ance w as s o s er i ous l ydefi ci entas t o fal l bel ow an obj ect i ve-4-

s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , and that“the def i ci entper for m ance pr ej udi ced the defe ns e. ” Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). T h e u lti m a te qu est i on , according t o the Su prem e C ou rt , i s “w hethercou nsel ’s con du ctso underm i ned the pr operfunct i oni ng of the adve r s ar i al pr oces s t hatt he [pr ocee di ngs ] cannotbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr oduced a j us tr es ul t . ” Id . a t 6 8 6 . A . Judi c ialFact- Finding M r. C arter arg u es th at co u n sel h ad a d u tyto o bject t o the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n side rati o n o f th e n ature o f h is prior co n v ict ion s, as o p p o sed to the m ere exi s t ence of the convi ct i ons , i n s ent enci ng hi m undert he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct . M r . C ar t err el i es on Uni t ed Stat es v. G r eer , 359 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1379- 80 ( M . D . G a. 2005) , t o s how t hatatl eas tone fe der al di s t r i ctj udge has rul ed thatt he Si xt h A m endmentr equi r es j ur i es , notj udges , t o m ake s uch det erm i nat i ons . T he E l eventh C i r cui tr ece nt l yr ever s ed the dec i s i on i n G r eer , fi ndi ng t hatt he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s anal y s i s contr adi ct ed both Supr eme C our tand C i r cui tpr ece dent , bot h of w hi ch es t abl i s h t hatj udges have a ut hor i t yt o engage i n fac tual i nqui r i es about p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. G r eer , 4 4 0 F . 3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 3 -74 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n c a n n o t b e re c o n c iled w ith A lm endar ez - Torr es v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 2 3 U . S . 2 2 4 (19 9 8 ), o r Uni t ed Stat es v. Shel t on , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )) . A s t he di s t r i ctcour tbel ow corr ect l yobs erved, t hi s C our thas r ecogni zed t h a t“ [ b ] e c a u s e d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e ra g i v e n fe l o n y c o n s t i tu t e s a ‘ v i o l e n tfe l o n y’-5-

i s a ques t i on of l aw and notfac t , t he Si xt h A m endmentdoes notr equi r e that det erm i nat i on t o be made bya j ur y . ” United S t ates v. Moo re , 401 F. 3d 1220, 1 2 2 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re fo re , co u n se l w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to c h a l l e n g e t h e c o u r t ’ s fa c t - fi n d i n g a u t h o r i t y. B . F u llFaith an d CreditClau se M r . C ar t eral s o ar gues t hathi s s econd- degr ee bur gl aryconvi ct i ons , w hi ch t he St at e of O kl ahoma cl as s i fi ed as non- vi ol entfel oni es , have be en u n co n sti tuti o n all yre-classified as v iolen t felon ies b ythe d istri ct co u rt . M r. C arter co n tend s tha t O k laho m a’s final jud g m en t i n ea ch o f h is bu rglary convi ct i ons m us tbe r es pect ed byt he fe der al governm entas w el l as ot hers t at es u n d e r t h e F u ll F a ith a n d C re d it C la u s e o f th e C o n s titu tio n . U .S . C o n s t. a rt . IV , § 1 . M r. C arter reli es o n a c o n cu rri n g o p inion fro m the E igh th C ir cu itto su p p o rt h is p o sitio n th a t fe d e ra l co u rts a re b o u n d b yth e F u ll F a ith a n d C re d it C lau se to a d o p t sta te ju d icia l ch a ra c ter iza tio n s o f v io len t o r n o n -v io len t fe lo n ies a s th e ir o w n . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 4 1 7 F .3 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 4 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( B ri g h t, J ., concurr i ng) ( ar gui ng t hatourfede r al s y s t em re qui r es fede r al cour t s t o “r es pect t he cha r act erof s t at e j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , as det erm i ned byt he s t at es t hem sel ves. ”) W e are not per suaded . E ven i f t he F ull F ai t h an d C redi tC l ause w e re b in d in g o n fe d e ra l c o u rt s – w h ic h it is n o t, Uni vers i t y of Tennes s ee v . E lli o tt , 4 7 8 U .S . 7 8 8 , 7 9 9 (1 9 8 6 ) – th e c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f sta te c o u rt ju d g m e n ts-6-

to d e ter m in e th e ir c o n se q u e n c e s u n d e r th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s is a fe der al ques t i on. I tdoes notacc or d a s t at e j udgm entl es s t han ful l fai t h and cr edi tfora fe der al cour tt o det erm i ne i t s effecton a s ubs equentfede r al s ent ence underfede r al l aw . O ne of the overr i di ng purpos es of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (e v e n in th e ir p o st- B ookera d v iso ryfo rm ) is to re d u c e u n w a rra n ted d isp a rities in s ent enci ng. T hi s i s bes tachi eved byappl y i ng a uni for m nat i onal s t andar d t o t he char act er i zat i on of pr i orconvi ct i ons . M r . C ar t er ’ s couns el w as not cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entforr efr ai ni ng fr om ar gui ng ot herw i s e. I I I . C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY D onal d R ayC ar t er ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS t hi s appea l . W e al s o DE NY hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge