2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-30-2009 

# S h arrieff v . C athel
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1156

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S h arr ieff v

. C athe l " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 880. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/8801 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 1156

J I H A D A BD U LLA H SH A RR I EFF, A ppel l ant

v. RONALD H. CATHEL , ADM I NI S TRAT OR; THE A TTOR NEY GEN ERA L OF THE STATE OF N EW J ERSEY PETER C. HA RV EY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctC our tof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 05- cv- 04525 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

J une 24, 2009T he H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hief Judge of t he * U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat ional T r ade, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. W e r efe rt o R onal d H

. C athel and t he A t t or neyG ener al 1 of the St at e of N ew J er s eycol l ect i vel yas t he “St at e”. 2 B e f o re : B A R R Y , S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges a n d R E S T A N I, Judge

. * ( Fi l ed: J ul y30, 2009)

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. A p p e llan t Jih a d A b d u llah S h a rrie f f u n su c c e ss f

u lly pet i ti oned the D i s t r i ctC our tforhabea s r el i ef ba s ed on an all eg ed v iolati o n o f his S ixth A m en d m en t r igh ts un d er B la ke ly v. W as hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). B e c a u se th e S tate a d m its 1 t hata B la ke ly v iola t i on occurr ed, t hi s appea l tur ns on t he r es ol ut i on of one i s s ue: w hether t he St at e expr es s l yw ai ved the e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )(3 ) w h e n it c o n c e d e d e x h a u stio n b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt. W e h o ld th a t it di d. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on i n par t , and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o gr antShar r i eff’ s pet i t i on for habea s r el i ef s o t hathe maybe r es ent ence d i n s t at e courtonT he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r emanded t he ca s e fo r entr yof 2 an amended j udgm entt o corr ectm er gererr or s t hatar e notat iss u e in th is a p p e a l. 3 his t w o robb erycon vict i on s. I. Shar r i eff w as convi ct ed i n t he Super i or C our t of N ew J e r s e yo f c h a r g e s s t e mm i n g f

r o m th e a r me d r o b b e r yo f t wo i ndi vi dual s and the murde rof a thi r d. H e w as s ent en ced t o a t o t a l t e r m o f

i m p r i s o n m e n to f

l i f e p l u s f o r ty ye a r s w i t h a s i x t yfour

- y earpar ol e bar

. O n A pr i l 8 , 2 0 0 4 , t he Super i orC our tof N e w Je rse y , A p p e llate D iv isio n , d e n ied S h a rrie f f ’s a p p e a l o f

h is convi ct i ons and sent ence s forcomm i t t i ng t he r obber i es and the m u rde r. 2 O n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt i s s ued i t s deci s i on i n B l akel y v . W a s hi ngt on . O n J anuary5, 2005, Shar r i eff

fi l ed tw o document s w i t h t he Supr eme C our tof N ew J er s ey : 1) a mot i on forl eave t o fi l e a not i ce of pet i t i on for cert i fi cat i on nunc pr o t unc , and 2) a l et t er - p eti t i on for cert i fi cat i on thatar gued, fo r th e fi r s tt i m e, t hathi s s ent ence s w er e i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of B la ke ly

. T h e S u pr eme C our tof N ew J er s eygr ant ed Sharr i eff’ s m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e a not i ce of pet i t i on for cert i fi cat i on as w i t hin t i m e, bu t den ied h is pet i t i on forcert i fi cat i on.4 F o llo w in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f N e w Je rse y ’s d e n ial, Shar r i eff pet i t i oned the D i s t r i ctC our tforhabea s r el i ef w i t hout fi r s ts eeki ng pos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e cour t
. I n hi s fede r al h a b e a s p e titio n , S h a rr ie f f r a i s e d , in tera lia , a c laim th a t h is s ent ence s w er e i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of B la ke ly

. In it s an sw er, th e S tate “ e m p h a siz e [ d ] th a t p e tit io n e r h a s re c e iv e d a f u ll, f a ir a n d a d e q u a te h e a rin g b yth e N e w Je rse yS tate C o u rts w ith r es pectt o al l o f the i s s ues r ai s ed. ” Speci fi cal l yaddr es s i ng S harr i eff’s B la ke ly cl ai m , t he St at e not ed thatShar r i eff di d not r ai s e i t pr i or t o hi s pet i t i on forcert i fi cat i on, butconcl uded that i t “appe ar s t hat[Sharr i eff ] has exhaus t ed hi s s t at e courtr emedy as to this issu e, si n ce h e p rese n ted it t o the s tat e’s h igh est co u rt in h is p e titio n f

o r c e rt if ic a tio n .” T he D i s t r i ct C our t deni ed Sharr i eff’ s habea s pet i t i on on i t s m e r i t s a n d r e f

u s e d t o i s s u e a c e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y . We i s s ued a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yto d et erm i ne w hethert he s ent ence s forShar r i eff’ s t w o r obberyconvi ct i ons w er e i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of B la ke ly

. W e d e n ied S h arrieff ’s req u est fo r a cert i fi cat e of a pp eal abil i t yas t o all otheri ssues. II. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S
. C. §§ 2241 and 2254, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3
. S ince the D istri ct C o u rt ru le d o n S h arrieff ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n w ith o u t a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g , o u r re v iew o f its d e c is io n is p le n a ry. See M ars hal l v. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 50A ccor di ng t o N
. J
. C t
. R
. 2: 12- 4, 3 C er t i fi cat ion w i l l be gr ant ed onl yi f the appe al pr es ent s a ques t i on of gene r al publ i c i m por t ance w hi ch has notbeen buts houl d be se tt le d byt he Supr em e C our tori s s i m i l art o a ques t i on 5 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. “Thus, w e w i l l r evi ew t he s t at e court s ’ deci s i ons appl y i ng t he s ame st andar d as t he D i s t r i ctC our t
. ” Id

. H er e, sinc e n o stat e c o u rth as a d jud icated the m erit s o f S h arr ieff ’s B la ke ly cl ai m , w e w i l l r evi ew pur e l egal questi o n s and mi xed q u e stio n s o f

law a n d f

a c t de novo , butw il l pr es um e the c o rre c tn e ss o f a n y f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s tha t th e sta te c o u rts h a v e m a d e . See App elv. H orn , 2 5 0 F
. 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). III
. B ot h Shar r i eff and t he S t at e agr ee t hatt he s ent ence s for hi s r obberyconvi ct i ons w er e i m pos ed i n v iol at i on of B la ke ly

. B u t “[ w ]ith o u t a n e x p re ss w a iv e r b yth e sta te, a f e d e ra l co u rt is a llo w e d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )(1 )(A ) to g ra n t a sta te p riso n e r’s h a b e a s p e tit io n o n ly if th e p e tit io n e r h a s e x h a u ste d a ll avai l abl e s t at e r emedi es . ” B ronshtei n v. H orn , 404 F.3d 700, 725 ( 3d C i r. 2005)

. H er e, i ti s cl eart hatShar r i eff has not exhaus t ed al l avai l abl e s t at e r emedi es . H e does notdi s put e the S tate ’s a ss e rtio n th a t h e c o u ld o b tai n r e li e f th ro u g h sta te p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . A nd s i nce t he Supr eme C our tof N ew J er s eyexer ci s es di s cr et i onaryr evi ew , N
. J
. C t
. R
. 2: 12- 4, i tw as 3p r e s e n t e d o n a n o t h e ra p p e a l t o t h e S u p r e me C our t ; i f t he deci s i on under r evi ew i s in co nfl i ct w i t h anyot herdeci s i on of the s ame ora hi gher c o u r to rc a l l s f

o ra n e x e r c i s e o f

t h e S up r e me C our t ’ s s upervi s i on and in o the rm at t er s i f the i nt er es tof j us t i ce r equi r es . C er t i fi cat i on w i l l not b e a llo w e d o n f

in a l ju d g m e n ts o f th e A p p e llate D i vis i on excep tfor speci al reas on s. I n C a s til le , the C o u rt re c o g n ize d e x c e p tio n s to th is 4 g e n e r a l ru l e “ wh e r e t h e S t a t e h a s a c tu a l l yp a s s e d u p o n t h e c l a i m,

. . . and w her e the cl ai m has b ee n p rese nt ed as of r i ghtbut i gnor ed ( and t her efor e i m pl i edl yr ej ect ed)

. . . . ” 489 U
. S. at 351. N ei t herof thos e exc ept i ons appl yher e. 6 n o t en o u g h f

o r S h a rrie f

f to a ss e rt, fo r th e f

irst an d o n lytim e in st at e cou rt , his B la ke ly c la im in h is p e titio n f o r c e rt if ic a tio n . See C as t i l l e v. P eopl es , 489 U
. S. 346, 351 ( 1989) ( hol di ng t hat“the s ubm i s s i o n o f a n ew cl ai m t o a St at e’ s hi ghes tcour ton di s cr et i onary r evi ew ” does not cons t i tut e a fai r pr es ent at i on of t hatcl ai m forexhaus t i on purpos es). T her efor e, even though 4 th e S tate c o n c e d e s th a t re lief is w a rra n ted o n th e m e rits o f h is B la ke ly cl ai m , w e m ust den y S harr i eff’s habeas peti t i on un l ess th e S ta te h a s e x p re s s ly w a iv e d th e e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. See B ro n sh tein , 404 F. 3d at725. T he expr es s w ai verr equi r ementi s m andat ed bys t atut e. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )(3 ) (“ A S tate sh a ll n o t b e d e e m e d to have w ai ved the exha us t i on r equi r emen t o r be e s t opped fr om7 re lian c e u p o n th e re q u ire m e n t u n les s th e S tate , th ro u g h c o u n se l, ex p ressly w aive s the req u ir em en t. ”). U n d er S ec ti o n 2 2 5 4 (b)(3 ), a n e xp r e s s w a i ve r r e qu i r e s mor e t ha n j us t t he fa i l ur e t o rai se e x h a u s tio n a s a d e f

e n s e . See L a m b e rt v . B la c kw e ll , 134 F. 3d 506, 514 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( not i ng t hat s i nce the A nt i t err or i s m and E ffe ct i ve D eath Penal t yA ctw as pas s ed, “a di s t r i ct cour tm ayno l on ger i nfer t hat a s t at e has w ai ved t he n on exh aust i on defe n se fr om it s fai l ur e t o i nvoke the def ens e expr es s l y ”)

. Sect i on 2254( b) ( 3) , how ever , does nots peci fyw hatcons t i tut es an
“ e x p re s s [ ] w a iv e [ r] .” Fi ve othercour t s of appe al s have r eac hed thi s i s s ue. D ’A m b rosi o v. B agl ey , 5 2 7 F .3 d 4 8 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); P i ke v

. G u a ri no , 4 9 2 F .3 d 6 1 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Ke rn s v . A u lt , 4 0 8 F. 3d 4 4 7 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); D ors ey v . C hapm an , 2 6 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); B l eds ue v. Johns on , 1 8 8 F
. 3 d 2 5 0 (5th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). Four of t hes e cour t s have hel d a s t at e’ s conce s s i on of exha us t i on befor e the D i s t r i ct C our tt o be an e xpr es s w ai verof the e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t u n d e r S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (b )( 3 ). P i ke , 492 F .3 d a t 7 1

– 7 3 ; Ker ns , 4 0 8 F .3 d a t 4 4 9 n .3 ; D ors ey , 262 F. 3d at 1 1 8 6

– 8 7 ; B l eds ue , 1 8 8 F .3 d a t 2 5 4 . T h e f if th c o u rt, th e S ix th C i r cui t , has concl uded thata s t at e ca n expr es s l yw ai ve the e x h a u stio n re q u ir e m e n t b ya c tin g in a m a n n e r c o n sis ten t w ith t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ed under s t andi ng t hatt he s t at e had c o n c e d e d e x h a u s tio n . See D ’A m b ro sio , 5 2 7 F .3 d a t 4 9 6 (“ T h is is a n e x tra o rd in a ryc a se in w h ich th e d istric t co u rt sta ted th a t it under s t ood exhaus t i on t o be a non- i ssu e and thatt he [s t at e] w oul d notl at eras s er ti t , t he [s t at e] fai l ed t o corr ect w h at the8 di s t r i ct cour tcl ear l yvi ew ed as t he [s t at e] ’ s pos i t i on dur i ng t he al m os tfour y ear s of l i t i gat i on befor e thatcour t , and the [s t at e] we n t o n t o s t a t e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] ’ s c l a i ms wou l d b e u n t i me l y i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s ( t h e r e b y c o n f i r mi n g t he d istri ct co u rt ’s un d erstan d ing ). ”). H ere , the S tat e w o u ld hav e us reac h a d ec isi o n co n tr ary t o t hos e of our s i s t er ci r cui t s . I tpoi nt s t o G e o rg e v . S ive ly , 254 F. 3d 438 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w her e w e r efus ed t o deem exhaus t i on expr es s l yw ai ved eve n t hough “the U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyhas a rg u e d th a t w e sh o u ld h e a r [th e p e tit io n e r’s ] a p p e a l an d sh o u ld n o t r e q u ir e [ th e p e tit io n e r] to e x h a u s t h is te rr ito ri a l r e m e d ie s .” Id

. at441 n. 4. I t ar gues t hat t hi s l anguage r equi r es us t o hol d a conce s s i on i n an ans w er i ns uffi ci entt o expr es s l yw ai ve the e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. W e d o n o t a g re e . George co ncerned w hethera pet i t i onerconvi ct ed of t err i t or i al offe ns es i n t he D istric t C o u rt o f th e V irg in Isla n d s c o u ld c o llate ra llya ttac k h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 2 5 5
. Id

. at440–41. T her e, t he governm entas s er t ed thatt he pet i t i oner “w as ent i t l ed t o p roceed und er § 225 5 and w as not r equ i red i nst ead to exh aust hi s t err i t or i al r emedi es . ” Id

. at 4 4 1
. T hi s m eans t hatt he g o v e r n m e n t ’ s p o s i t i o n w a s t h a tS e c t i o n 2 2 5 4 d i d n o ta p p l y. A ccor di ngl y , w hen t he governm ent“ar gued thatw e s houl d hear [th e p eti ti o n er’s] ap p ea l and sh o u ld n o t req u ir e [the p eti ti o n er] t o exhaus thi s te r r i t or i al r emedi es , ” i tw as notconce di ng t hat Sect i on 2254’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ementhad bee n s at i s fi ed; i ns t ead, i tw as cl ai m i ng t hatt he r equi r ementneed notbe metat a ll. S in c e th e re w a s n o c o n c e s s io n o f e x h a u s tio n , G eor

ge does9 notcontr ol t he pr es entcas e. A “w ai veris t he ‘ i nt ent i onal r el i nqui s hm entor abandonmentof a know n r i ght

. ’ ” U ni t ed States v. O l ano , 507 U
. S. 725, 733 ( 1993) ( quot i ng Joh nson v. Zerbst , 304 U
. S. 458, 464 ( 1938) )

. T o be ex p res s , a w ai verof exha us t i on m us tbe c le a r, e x p lic it, a n d u n a m b ig u o u s . See D ’A m b ro sio , 527 F. 3d at 495 ( “C our t s al s o gener al l yagr ee that ‘ expr es s ’ i s s ynonym ous w i t h ‘cl ear’ or ‘ un am biguou s. ’”); P i ke , 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 7 2 (“ It is hor nbook l aw t hat w ai ver s of exhaus t i on w i l l not li g h tl y be in f e rre d b u t, rath e r, m u st b e c lea r a n d e x p licit.”); D ors ey , 262 F. 3d at1187 ( “[T] he s t at e’ s expl i ci tw ai ver o f [t he n o n e x h a u stio n ] d e f

e n se b e f o re th e d istric t co u rt f

o re c lo se s it b e in g a ss e rte d h e re .”); see al so W eb s ter ’s T

h ird N ew Int’l D i cti on ary 803 ( 1966) ( defi ni ng “expr es s ” as “di r ect l yand d is tin c tly sta te d o r e x p re s s e d

. . . n o t d u b io u s o r a m b ig u o u s . . . d e f in it e , cle a r, ex p licit, u n m ista k a b le . . .”). H e re , the S tate c o n c e d e d e x h a u stio n b e f o re th e D istric t C o u r t b ysta tin g in its ans w ert o Shar r i ef

f’s ha beas pet i t i on t hati t“appe ar s t hat [Sharr i eff

] has exhaus t ed hi s s t at e court rem edyas t o [the B la ke ly ] i ssu e, si n ce h e p rese n ted itto the stat e’s h igh est co u rt in h is p e tit io n f

o r c e rtific a tio n .” T h e f

a c t th a t th e S tate b a se d its conce s s i on on a fl aw ed l egal concl us i on i s of no cons equenc e; its c o n c e s s io n c le a r ly, e x p licitly , an d u n a m b ig u o u sly r el i nqui s hed and a bandoned i t s r i ghtt o as s er tt he nonexha us t i on defe ns e. T hati s enough t o expr es s l yw ai v e the exha us t i on re q u ir e m e n t u n d e r S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (b )( 3 ). See Ker ns , 408 F. 3d at 449 n. 3 ( hol di ng t hat t he s t at e expr es s l yw ai ved the exha us t i onW e ac know l edge thatour hol di ng i s contr aryt o D r eher 5 v. P i nchak , 6 1 F . A p p ’x 8 0 0 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). D r eher , h o w ev er, w as an unpubl i s hed and notpr ece dent i al opi ni on. I n P i ke , t he Fi r s tC i r cui t hel d t hat “[a ] fede r al cour tm ay 6 c h o o s e , in its s o u n d d is c re tio n , to re je c t a s ta te ’s w a iv e r o f

. . . nonexhaus t i on . . . . ” See P i ke , 492 F. 3d at74. A s s um i ng t hat w e had s uch di s cr et i onarypow er , w e w oul d not exer ci s e i ther e. T he St at e admi t s t hata B la ke ly vi ol at i on occurr ed and t hat S h arrieff is en ti tl ed to b e re sen te n c e d o n h is tw o rob b ery c o n v ictio n s. U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, “ it i s e v id e n t th a t a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e h a s o c c u rre d ,” a n d it i s a p p ro p ria te to re a c h th e m e rits o f

S h a rrie f

f ’s p e tit io n “ in o rd e r to a v o id u n n e c e s s a ry d e la yin g ra n tin g re lie f th a t is p la in ly w a rr a n te d .” G r anber r y v. G r eer , 4 8 1 U
. S
. 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 (19 8 7 ). N onethel es s , nei t herpartyhas br i efe d w hetherw e have t he di s cr et i on t o r ej ectt he St at e’ s expr es s w ai verof exha us t i on. Si nce r es ol ut i on of thi s i s s ue w oul d not aff ect ourdeci s i on her e, w e l e a v e i tf

o ra n o t h e rd a y. 10 r equi r ement w i t h a conce s s i on i n i t s di s t r i ctcour tbr i efi ng, even th o u g h th e c o n c e ss io n w a s m a d e in e rro r); D ors ey , 262 F. 3d at 1187 ( concl udi ng t hatt he s tat e expr es s l yw ai ved the nonexhaus t i on defe ns e w h ere the s t at e, bas ed on a mi s t aken bel i ef, expr es s l ydecl i ned t o r ai s e the def ens e i n i t s ans w ert o t he fede r al habea s pet i t i on)

. T her efor e, w e mayr eac h t he mer i t s of 5 Shar r i eff’ s habea s pet i t i on, and w i l l gr anthi m t he uncont es t ed 6 rel i ef t hat he seeks.11 I V. Sect i on 2254( b) ( 3) r equi r es that a s t at e’ s w ai verof exhaus t i on be expr es s , but i t does not demand the i nvocat i on of a n y“ m a g ic w o rd s.” H e re , b yc o n c e d in g e x h a u s ti o n in its a n s w e rt o S h a r r i e f

f ’ s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n , t h e S t a t e c l e a r l y, expl i ci t l y , and unambi guous l yw aived the exha us t i on re q u ir e m e n t. B o th p a rties a g re e th a t, on th e m e rits o f h is p e t i t i o n , S h a r r i e f

f i s e n t i t l e d t o b e r e s e n t e n c e d o n h i s t wo r obberyconvi ct i ons . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’ s deci s i on i n par t , and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o gr ant Shar r i eff’ s habea s pet i t i on so that he maybe r es ent ence d on t ho se tw o co nv i ct i on s.