FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 27, 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. 05- 13145 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN os. 01 -000 24 -C R -1-1 & 01 -000 24 -C R -2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I C H A E L W . W I L L I A M S , M A L E N T H I A W I L L I A M S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ 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 r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M i c ha e l W . W i l l i a m s a nd M a l e nthi a W i l l i a m s , f e de r a l pr i s one r s pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the i r“ M ot i on f

orD e t e r m i na t i on of F ed eral Ju ri sd i ct i o n . ” T h e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed th ei r m o t i o n o n th e m eri t s, obs e r vi ng tha tthe c our ttha tc onduc t e d the c r i m i na l tr i a l di d ha ve j ur i s di c t i on; ho w ever , w e f

i rs tchar ac t er i ze the m ot i on as on e s ee ki ng habeas re l i ef and then de t e r m i ne tha tthe W i l l i a m s e s ha ve notm a de the r e qui s i t e s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng of th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t th a t w o u ld w a rr a n t th e is s u a n c e o f a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p eal ab i l i ty (“ C O A ”), w h i ch w e i n t erp retth ei r ap p eal t o req u est . A cco rd i n g l y, w e D E N Y th e W i l l i am ses’ m o t i o n fo r a C O A an d D IS M IS S th e W i l l i am ses’ ap p e a l.

I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 1 F e brua ry 2002, the W i l l i a m s e s w e r e a dj udge d gui l ty of a r m e d ba nk robb ery, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 11 3(a) , (d), and p osse ss i on of a f i re arm d u r in g a c r im e o f

v io le n c e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) a n d ( 2 ) . W e a f f ir m e d . U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , N o . 0 2 - 1 0 7 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . D e c . 3 , 2 0 0 2 ) . O n 2 2 A p r i l 2 0 0 4 , th e W i l l i a ms e s f i l e d a mo t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2255, w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d on 11 J a nua ry2005. T he r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha tthe W i l l i a m s e s appe a l e d tha tor de r . O n 20 D e c e m be r2004, dur i ng the3

pe nde nc y of

the i r§ 2255 m ot i on, the W i l l i a m s e s f i l e d a “ M ot i on f

orD e t e r m i na t i on of F eder al Juri sdi ct i on , ” a rgui ng thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n othave subj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe bank robb ery off ense because the offens e di d n ott ake pl ac e o n a “f e d e r a l e n c la v e ” o ro n f

e d e r a l p r o p e r ty . T h e y a s s e r te d th a t it w a s n o t a m ot i on f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the W i l l i a m s e s ’ m ot i on c onc l udi ng tha tj ur i s di c t i on w a s notde pe nde nton the l oc a t i on of the cr i m e i n thei r c as e. E ven tho ug h the W i l l i am se s c l ai m ed thei r m ot i on w as n o t a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , th e y f ile d a “m o tio n 2 2 5 3 ,” in w h ic h th e y r e q u e s te d a C O A . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c lin e d to is s u e a C O A , a n d th e W illia m s e s h a v e ap p e a le d . I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he W i l l i a m s e s di d noti ndi c a t e the ba s i s f orthe i r“ M ot i on f

or D e t e r m i na t i on of

F e de r a l J ur i s di c t i on. ” T o the e xt e nttha tthe W i l l i a m s e s ’ m ot i on pr e s e nt s a j ur i s di c t i ona l c ha l l e nge , w e e xe r c i s e pl e na ry r e vi e w ove rw he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tha d j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de raque s t i on of l a w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ova r - R i c o, 61 F . 3d 1529, 1532 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . E i ghtm onths pr i ort o f i l i ng the i ns t a ntm ot i on, the W i l l l i a m s e s f i l e d a 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on. A s the i r§ 2255 m ot i on w as st i l l pend i ng , thei r s ub se qu entm ot i on shou l d n othave been consi dere d a s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , b u t in s te a d a m o tio n to a m e n d th e ir§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n .The Willi amses also c laim that they areentitled to notice that a motion is being 1 considere d under thefra

mework provided for ha

beas relief, c iting Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 584 ( 2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Adams is inapposite bec ause theWil liamses have alre ady filed a ha beas petition pursuant to § 2255. Thus, the rationale of protectinga petitioner from the restrictions on subsequent filing s is inapplicable. As already discussed, wehave interpreted the cur

rent motion as an a

mended § 2255 petition, which avoids the prejudice de sc ribe d in

Adams. 4 C hi ng v. U ni t ed S t at es , 29 8 F . 3d 17 4, 17 7 (2d C i r. 20 02 ). T hu s, the di stri ctcourt ha d j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe m e r i t s of the W i l l i a m s e s ’ m ot i on. A l though the W i l l i a m s e s s pe c i f i c a l l y i ndi c a t e tha tthe y w e r e notpur s ui ng a m ot i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255, habe a s r e l i e f unde rtha ts e c t i on appe a r s t o be the o n ly c o g n iz ab le b a s is f

o rth e irc la im . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ( p r o v id in g th a t a f e de r a l pr i s one r“ c l a i m i ng the r i ghtt o be r e l e a s e d upon the gr ound tha tthe sen t en ce w as i m p o sed i n v i o l at i o n o f th e C o n st i tu t i o n o r l aw s o f th e U n i t ed S t at es, ortha tthe c our tw a s w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on t o i m pos e s uc h s e nt e nc e ” m a y br i ng a col l at er al chal l enge t o h i s s ent ence by fi l i ng a m ot i on t o v ac at e, se tas i de or corre ct the s e nt e nc e ) . F ur the r , the i r“ m ot i on 2253” f i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc our ta nd s e e ki ng a C O A , s tr ongl y s ugge s t s tha tthe y w e r e s e e ki ng r e l i e f unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255, re gardl es s of thei r c l ai m s t o the contra ry . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe m ot i on fi l ed 1 w ith th e d is tr ic t w a s a n a m e n d e d h ab e a s p e titio n , o v e rw h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n an d o n w h i ch th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d i ssu e a d en i al o n th e m eri t s. Un d e rth e An t i t e rr o r i s m a n d E f f e c t i v e De a th P e n a l ty Ac t( “ AE DP A” ) , we w o u ld h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is ap p e a l if th e § 2 2 5 5 m o v a n t o b ta in e d a C O A toAn application for a COA must be c onsidered f irst by the district court. F ed. R. App. 2 P. 22(b)(1); Edw ards v. United States, 114 F .3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Ho wever, a

dis tric t c ourt ’sdenial of

a CO A i s n ot re viewa

bleon a pp e al. P ruitt

v. Unite d St ate s, 274 F.3d 1315, 1319 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Instead, if the district c ourt denies a COA, thepetition e r m ay

re qu e st a CO A f ro m th ec ourt

of a pp e als. I d. ; F e d. R. A

pp . P. 22 (b )( 1) . A s a matter of judicial economy, however, wemay trea t an “a ppeal”of the denial of a COA a s an a pp lic atio n f

or a CO A. Pr

uitt, 2 74 F .3 d at 13 19 -2 0; F e d. R. A pp . P. 22 (b )( 2) (“ I f n o e xpre ss reque st for a c ertifica

te is filed, the notice of

appeal constitutes a reque st addresse d to the judge s of the c ourt of appe als.”). 5 appeal a deni al of thei r m ot i on . S peci fi ca l l y, the st atut e provi des that [ u] nl e s s a c i r c ui tj us t i c e orj udge i s s ue s a c e r t i f i c a t e of ap p e a lab ility , a n ap p e a l m a y n o t b e ta k e n to th e c o u r t o f ap p e a ls fr om -- ( A ) the f i na l or de ri n a habe a s c orpus pr oc e e di ng i n w hi c h the d e te n tio n c o m p la in e d o f a r is e s o u t o f

p r o c e s s is s u e d b y a S ta te court ; or ( B ) the f i na l or de ri n a pr oc e e di ng unde rs e c t i on 2255. 28 U . S . C . § 2253( c ) ( 1) . T hus , w e m a y note nt e r t a i n the appe a l w i thoutthe pr i or 2 i s s u a n c e o f

a C OA . T o obt a i n a C O A , the pr i s one rm us tm a ke a “ s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng of the d e n ia l o f a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” I d . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c lin e d to is s u e th e W illia m s e s a C O A , h o w e v e r , w e m a y s till is s u e o n e in th e ap p r o p r ia te c i r c um s t a nc e s . T hus , w e m a y gr a nta C O A i f “ r e a s onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d f i nd the di stri ctcourt ’ s a ss es sm entof the const i tut i on al cl ai m s debat abl e or w rong . ” S l ac k v . Mc Da n i e l , 5 2 9 U. S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 , 1 2 0 S . C t . 1 5 9 5 , 1 6 0 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Ho we v e r , “ a C OA doe s notr e qui r e a s how i ng tha tthe appe a l w i l l s uc c e e d. A c c or di ngl y , a c our tof appeal s s ho ul d n otdecl i ne the appl i ca t i on for aC O A m er el y bec ause i tbel i eves6

th e ap p lic a n t w ill n o t d e m o n s tr a te a n e n title m e n t to r e lie f .” M ille r - E l v . C o c k r e ll, 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 7 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 3 9 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( a d d r e s s in g § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n ) . N ot i ng tha ti s s ua nc e of

a C O A i s a j ur i s di c t i ona l pr e r e qui s i t e t o r e s ol ut i on of the m e r its o f th e ap p e a l, th e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t th e p r o p e rf o c u s a t th e C O A s ta g e is t o lo o k to th e D istrict C o u rt’s ap p li ca ti o n o f A E D P A to p etit io n er ’s c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s a n d a s k w h e th e rth a t r e s o lu tio n w a s d e b a tab le a m o n g s t ju r is ts o f

r e a s o n . T h is th r e s h o ld in q u iry d o e s n o t r e q u ir e f u ll c ons i de r a t i on of

the f a c tua l orl e ga l ba s e s a dduc e d i n s uppor tof the c la im s . I n f

a c t, [ 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ] f o rb id s it. Id. at33 6, 12 3 S . C t . at10 39 . In sum , the C ou rtno t ed that , atthe C O A st age,

“ [ t ] he que s t i on i s the de ba t abi l i ty of the unde r l y i ng c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m , notthe r e s ol ut i on of

tha tde ba t e . ” I d. a t342, 123 S . C t . a t1042. T u rn i n g t o th e m eri t s o f th e W i l l i am ses’ req u estfo r a C O A , w e m u st det erm i ne w hether the W i l l i am se s have m ade a“ subst ant i al show i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . ” T he W i l l i a m s e s a r gue tha tthe ba nk r obbe ry s t a tut e , 18 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) , is a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l e x e r c is e o f c o n g r e s s io n a l p o w e rb e c a u s e it s e e ks t o r e gul a t e a c t i vi ty out s i de of the e xc l us i ve f

e de r a l e nc l a ve of

W a s hi ngt on, D . C . , and the W i l l i am se s c i t e the17 th C l ause of the U . S . C on st i tut i on , A rt i cl e I , S ec t i on 8 for thei r a rgum ent . T he const i tut i on al i ty of the fe dera l bank robb ery s ta tu te w a s d e c id e d lo n g a g o . S e e H u d s p e th v . M e lv ille , 1 2 7 F .2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 ( 1 0 th7

C ir. 1 9 4 1 ). C o n g re ss re li ed o n A rticle I, S ec ti o n 8 , C lau se s 5 an d 1 8

— C o n g re ss ’s ab ility u n d e rth e N e c e s s a ry a n d P r o p e rC la u s e to p a s s la w s in f u r th e r a n c e o f

its po w ert o coi n m on ey . Id. B ec ause C on gres s di d n oti m prop er l y e xerc i se i t s pow er u n d er th e C o n st i tu t i o n , th e W i l l i am ses’ arg u m en tfai l s. A s to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, s u c h c o u r ts h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to h e a rc a s e s c o n c e rn i n g th e v i o l a t i o n o f th e l a w s o f

th e U n i t e d St a t e s . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3231. B a nk r obbe ry i s a c r i m e unde rthe l a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 2113( a ) . S e c t i on 2113 doe s notpr ot e c tonl y ba nks on f e de r a l l a nd or tho se ow ned b y the fe dera l go vernm ent . Id. Inst ea d, the l aw agai nstbank robb ery pr ot e c t s ba nks tha ta r e m e m be r s of the F e de r a l R e s e r ve S y s t e m ori ns ur e d by the F e de r a l D e pos i tI ns ur a nc e C orpor a t i on. 18 U . S . C . § 2113( f ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M aner , 61 1 F . 2d 10 7, 10 8 (5th C i r. 19 80 ). F or these re as on s, i tdo es no tm att erthatthe bank thatthe W i l l i am se s r ob bed w as no ton excl usi vel y f eder al l and. T he bank the W i l l i am se s r ob bed w as i nsured by the F D IC . R 9-12 1 at93 . A s f eder al j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe cr i m e of bank rob bery appl i e s m or e br oa dl y tha n the W i l l i a m s e s s ugge s t , no r e a s onabl e j ur i s tc oul d f i nd th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g w a s d e b a tab le o rin c o rr e c t.8 I I I . CONCL US I ON T he W i l l i a m s e s ha ve appe a l e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the i r“ M ot i on for D et erm i nat i on of F eder al Juri sdi ct i on . ” W e f i rs tchar ac t er i ze d the m ot i on as on e s ee ki ng habeas re l i ef and con si dere d w hether t o i ss ue a C O A . C on cl ud i ng that the W i l l i am se s f

ai l ed t o m ake asubst ant i al show i ng of the deni al of a const i tut i on al ri gh t , w e DE NY the W i l l i a m s e s ’ m ot i on f ora C O A a nd D I SM I SS th e W illia m s e s ’ ap p e a l.