FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J AN 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1111 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 94 3- CV-J -1 2- TEM FREDERIC K LAW RENCE SNYDER, JR.,
Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J an ua ry17, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Fr ed er ic k S ny de r, Jr
. , af

ed er al pr iso ne r ap pe ar ing pr o se , appe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e.In considering a dis trict court’s denial of a se ction 2255 motion, we revie w finding s of fa ct for 1 cl ea r err or and que stions of law de novo. Ly nn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 2 Sn y de r ha d be enc onvi ct ed of m anuf ac tur ing or

c ult ivatin g 10 0 or

m or e m ar ij uana plants , in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. § 84 1. W e gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty
o n th i s i s s u e: “ Whe t h erth e d i s t ri ct co u rt s h o u l dh av e c o n s t ru ed Sn yde r’s state m en t i n hi s r ep ly

to the gov er

nm en t’ s r es pons e to h is [ se ct ion ] 225 5 m oti on,
as a m otion to am end his [section] 2255 m otion to add a claim that his plea was
n o tkn o w i n g an dv o l u n t a ry. ” N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. 1 Inhis ini tia l se ct ion225 5 m oti on, S ny de r ide nti fi ed f our spe ci fi c re as ons why he rec eived ineffec tive assistance of counsel, includin g that, before Sny der ple d gu ilty

to m anuf ac tur ing or

c ult ivatin g a t l ea st 1 00 m ar ij uanaplants , his law y er f ai le d to inv es tig at e (1 ) the “ knoc k and t al k” pr oc ed ur e use d by

pol ic e to
co nduc t a se ar chin thi s c as e an d ( 2) the quanti ty of m ar ij uanainv olv ed

in Sn y de r’ s of

fe nse . A cc or din g to S ny de r, if his law y er

ha d in ve sti ga te d th e am ount of m arij uana, he w ouldhave discovered that the gov ernm ent had seized less than 100 m ar ij uanaplants and w oul d no t have pr ovi de d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e by
co nvi nc ing S ny de r to a gr ee to a quanti ty of m ar ij uanathat di d no t e xis t. T he gove rn m en t r es pond ed

that, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, S ny de r fa ile d to a rg ue that hi s3

g u i l t y p l e aw a s n o tkn o w i n g an dv o l u n t a ry a n dth a t , a s ar e s u l t , h e w a i v e dc l a i ms t h a tc o u l dh a v e b e e n r a i s e db e f o r e p l e a d i n g g u i l t y. Sny der re plied to th e governm ent’ s response, ar guin g that (1) his guil ty plea did not w ai ve his r igh t t o c ha lle nge the c onst itu tio na lity of the “ knoc k and t al k” pr oc ed ur e an d ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r w he the r the quanti ty of
m ar ij uanaa ttr ibu te d to S ny de r ac tua lly e xis te d or

w he the r his law y er

c oe rc ed him in to pl ead in g g ui lt y

to an off en se in vo lv in g 1 00 or m or e m ari juan a p la nt s. O n a ppe al , S ny de r ar gue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have c onstru ed his
re ply m or e lib er al ly

and v ie w ed

his r ep ly a s arg uin g th at

he w as unaw ar e of

the ri ght s w ai ve d w he n he ple d gu ilty . S ny de r as se rt s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in not c onstru ing thi s arg um en t a s an am en dm en t or sup ple m en t t o hi s se ct ion225 5
m ot io n abo ut whet he r he kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly ent ered hi s g ui lt y pl ea. Af t erca re fu l co n s i d er at i o n o f t h e r ec o rd , we ar e n o tp er s u ad ed b y Sn yde r’s argum ent. I n Clisbyv. Jones, 960 F. 2d 92 5, 934 (11th Cir. 1992), w e w rote that dis tr ic t c ourts m

ust “ re sol ve a ll co nst itu tio na l c la im s pr es en te d inape tit ionf or
w ri t of ha be as c or pus pur suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54 b ef or e gr an tin g or

de ny ing
re lie f. ” E ve n a ssu m ing that C lis by appl ie s to the c onsi de ratio n of S ny de r’ s se ct ion 2255 m oti on, w e se e no r ev er sib le e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to de nyUnder

Rule 12 of the Rules Gove rningSection 2255 Procee dings, a district court may

apply the 2 F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure c on sis te nt w iththe Rul e s G ov e rn ingSe c tio n 2 25 5 Pro ceedi ng s. Fe d.R.Civ.P . 15 permits a party to a mend a pleading once “as a matter of c ourse at any time before a re sponsive pleading is se rved,” or, otherwise, “only by leave of cour t or by written conse nt of the adver se par

ty .” See F ed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). 4 Sny der’ s m otion without specifically addressing whether his guilt y plea w as kn o w i n g an dv o l u n t a ry. Sn y de r fi le d no m oti on s ee kin g le av e to am en d hi s se ct ion225 5 m oti on af te r the gov er

nm en t f ile d it s r es pons e to i t. A nd e ve n li be ra lly c onstru ed , 2 Sn y de r’ s r ep ly

to the gov er

nm en t’ s r es pons e did

not se ek le av e to am en d hi s
se ct ion225 5 m oti on b y

r ai sin g ac la im

that hi s pl ea

w as not kno w ing a nd vol unt ar y . T o th e ex te nt tha t S ny de r ar gue d inhis r ep ly that he did

not w ai ve his ri ght to ch al le nge the pol ic e se ar ch , it appe ar s th at

S ny de r w as dis ag re ei ng w ith t h e g o v ern m en t ’s p o s i t i o n o n th e e ff ec to f h i s g u i l t y p l ea -- i n cl u d i n g th at Sn yde r’s gui lty ple a w ai ve d no n-

j ur isd ic tio na l c la im s th at c oul d have be enr ai se d be fo re his ple a -- ins te ad

of arg uin g th at

his gui lty

ple a w as not

kno w ing a nd v oluntary . A nd Sny der’ s claim

about being coerc ed into pl eading gui lty appears to concern
w he the r he r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el - - a cl ai m

a ddr es se d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt - - be ca

use his law y er

sup porte d hi s gu ilty

ple a w ith out

inv es tig at ingWe note that, in addre ssi ngthis particular ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim, the district 3 c ourt e xpla ine d that Sny de r agre e d with the fa c tua l bas is se t for th b y the g ov e rnme nt t

hat hi s o ff e ns e involved more than 100 ma rijuana pla

nts and that Sny der a dmitted that he enter ed into his guilty plea without threat, coe rcion, or intimidation. 5 the gov er nm en t’ s e vid en ce on the num be r of m ar ij uanaplants inv olv ed in thi s
case. 3 T he re fo re , w e do n ot b el ie ve that S ny de r’ s r ep ly a m en de d hi s se ct ion225 5
m ot io n t o ra is e cl ai m s b ey on d t he fou r arg um en ts ad dr es se d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. W e af fi rm the de nia l of

S ny de r’ s se ct ion225 5 m oti on. AFFIR MED.