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

### M ar c h 23,2007 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 , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. BEN RU SS ELL S M YLI E, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6291 ( D . C . N os . C I V - 06- 219- H E and 0 4 - CR- 0 0 2 0 6 - HE) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antB en R us s el l Sm y l i e, a fe der al i nm at e appe ar i ng pr o s e, re q u e sts a C e rtific a te o f A p p e a lab ili ty(“ C O A ” ) so th a t h e m a yc h a llen g e h is convi ct i on, pur s uantt o a gui l typl ea, of one c ountof pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. O n M ar ch 3, 2006, M r . Sm y l i e fi l ed a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, cont endi ng thatthe governm entfai l ed t o di s cl os e exc ul pat oryevi dence , thathi s convi ct i on vi ol at ed th e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC lau se , tha t h e re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g e rr o rs d e n ie d h im D u e P ro c e s s o f L a w . T he di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yr echa r act er i zed the pet i t i on as a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on, gi ven thatM r . Sm y l i e s oughtr el i ef f r om hi s i ncar cer at i on pur s uantt o aT h e w aive r ha d tw o ex ce p ti o n s– a se n tenc e in e x ce ss o f th e a d v isory 1 gui del i ne r ange a nd a r etr oact i ve cha nge i n the l aw –thatthe courtdet erm i ned w er e notoper at i ve i n M r . Sm y l i e’ s cas e. - 2 - fede r al convi ct i on and s ent ence . I tthen deni ed the mot i on i n al l r es pect s , hol di ng thatM r . Sm y l i e w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o col l at er al l yatt ack hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence i n hi s pl ea agr eement and gr ant i ng the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the pl ea 1 ag ree m en t. S ee R . (C R -04 -20 6 -H E ) D o c. 76 -1, E x . 1 at 5. W e a g ree that M r. Sm y l i e has notm 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 ri gh t , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(c) (2) , and w e den yhis requestfor a C O A and dis m i ss h is a p p e a l. Backg r ound O n N ovember16, 2004, a fe der al gr and j uryr eturned a thi r t een- count i ndi ctm entchar gi ng M r . Sm y l i e and RobbyJ oe Lauerw i th var i ous offe ns es r e l a t i n g t o th e ma n u fa c tu r e , p o s s e s s i o n , a n d d i s tr i b u t i o n o f me th a mp h e t a mi n e . R. D o c . 1 . A f

ter w a iv in g h is rig h t to a ju rytrial, R . D o c . 2 9 , M r. S m y lie p led g u ilty on February8, 2005, t o a s i ngl e countof pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance w ith inten t t o d istri b u te i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) (C o u n t Six). Pur s uantt o hi s pl ea a gr eement , M r . Sm y l i e pl ed gui l tyi n excha nge forthe g o v e rn m e n t’s a g re e m e n t to d ism iss th e re m a in in g c o u n ts a g a in st h im a n d to r ecomm end thathi s fede r al s ent ence be or der ed t o run concurr ent l yw i th the s e n t e n c e h e wa s t o r e c e i v e a f t e rp l e a d i n g g u i l tyt o s t a t e d ru g c h a r g e s . S e e R.- 3 -

D o c . 3 1 a t 3 . M r. S m y lie a lso a g re e d to w a iv e h is rig h t to a p p e a l o r c o llate ra lly chal l enge hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , pr ovi ded thathi s s ent ence fel l w i thi n the G ui del i ne r ange. I d. at5. H e expl ai ned hi s under s t andi ng of the pl ea a gr eement in h is P e tit io n to E n ter a P lea o f G u ilty : “I p lea d to c o u n t 6 a n d a ll o th e r c o u n ts w i l l b e d i s m i s s e d ; th e g o v e rn m e n ta g r e e s th e s e n t e n c e s h o u l d ru n c o n c u rr e n t [ l y] w ith m ysta te s e n ten c e s; n o o th e r c h a rg e s c a n b e filed ; w e h a v e stip u late d to gui del i ne pr ovi s i ons ; and an appel l at e w ai ver . ” R . D oc. 30 at8. T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d M r . Sm y l i e t o 173 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent fo llo w e d b y3 6 m o n th s’ s u p e rv ise d re lea se . H e d id n o t ap p e a l.

D i s cus s i on B efor e r eac hi ng the mer i t s of M r . Sm y l i e’ s cl ai m s , w e mustdet erm i ne w h e th e r h e is e n tit led to a C O A . P u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ), an in m a te s eeki ng a C O A m us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t.” H e m a yd o s o b y“ s h o w in g th a t r e a s o n a b le ju ri s ts c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r . .

. the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T he di s tr i ctcourthel d thatthe w ai veri n M r . Sm y l i e’ s pl ea a gr eement p r e v e n t e d h i m f

r o m c o l l a t e r a l l yc h a l l e n g i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . We typ ica llye n fo rc e w a iv e rs o f th is s o rt p ro v id e d th a t (1 ) th e d isp u ted a p p e a l fa lls- 4 -

w ith in th e sc o p e o f

th e w a iv e r, (2 ) th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily w ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s , and ( 3) enfor ci ng the w ai verw oul d notr es ul ti n a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e . S e e U n ited S tate s v . P o rte r, 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 2 (1 0 th C i r . ) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 550 ( 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H ahn, 359 F. 3d 1315, 1325 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C ockerham, 237 F. 3d 1179, 1 1 8 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). In th is case , w e h av e n o d ifficu ltyco n clud ing that M r. S m y lie’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n fa lls w ith in th e sc o p e o f h is w a iv e r o f

th e rig h ts to “col l at er al l ychal l enge hi s gui l typl ea a nd anyotheras pectof hi s convi ct i on” and t o “col l at er al l ychal l enge . . . hi s s ent ence as i m pos ed bythe C our tand the m anneri n w hi ch the s ent ence i s det erm i ned . . . . ” R . D oc. 31 at5. L i kew i s e, M r . Sm y l i e’ s s t at ement s i n hi s Pet i t i on t o E nt era Pl ea of G ui l tyand the di s tr i ct court ’ s r ecol l ect i on of the pl ea c ol l oquyar e s uffi ci enti ndi cat i on thathi s w ai ver w as know i ng and vol unt ary . See R . D oc. 30; R . D oc. 81 at4. W e al s o r ej ectM r . Sm y l i e’ s ar gum entthatenfor ci ng hi s pl ea a gr eement w o u ld re su lt i n a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . W e h a v e h e ld th a t: T o pr ove thatenfor cementof an a ppel l at e w ai verw oul d r es ul ti n a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce, a defendantm us tes t abl i s h atl eas tone of four ci r cumst ance s : ( 1) r el i ance bythe courtupon an i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct or s uch as r ace i n i m pos i t i on of the s ent ence ; ( 2) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i th the negot i at i on of the w ai ver ; ( 3) the se n ten c e e x c e e d s th e sta tu to rym a x im u m ; o r (4 ) th e w a iv e r is otherw i s e unl aw ful and s er i ous l yaffect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or pu bli c reput at i on of judi ci al proceed i ng s. Por t er , 405 F. 3d at1143. M r . Sm y l i e bea r s the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thatone of- 5 -

thes e fac tors ex ist s. U n it ed S tat es v . A n d erso n , 3 7 4 F . 3 d 9 5 5 , 9 5 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . He a r g u e s “ th a th i s p l e a wa s c o e r c e d b yh i s a t t o rn e y , ” Ap l t . Br . a t2 - A, and thathi s couns el “fa i l ed t o expl ai n t o hi m the r el evantfac t s conce rni ng th[e] pl ea, and he fai l ed t o expl ai n the r ami fi cat i ons of a pl ea i n the Feder al C our t , ” i d. at 16 -B . T h is co n tention is flat lyco n tr ad ict ed b yM r. S m y li e’s P eti ti o n to E n ter a P lea o f G u ilty , w h ich re flec ts a c lea r u n d e rsta n d in g o f h is p lea a g re e m e n t an d its cons equenc es . See R . D oc. 30. H e furtheras s ert s thathi s att orneys houl d nothave a dvi s ed hi m t o pl ead g u iltyb e c a u se th e e v id e n c e a g a in st h im w a s w e a k a n d b e c a u se h is p lea re su lted in m ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s forthe s ame drug act i vi ty . A pl t . B r . at16- A . H e does not c o n ten d th a t b u t fo r th e in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e h e w o u ld h a v e g o n e to trial, h o w e v e r. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G o rd o n , 4 F .3 d 1 5 6 7 , 1 5 7 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). R egar dl es s , thi s ar gum entdoes noti m pl i cat e “the val i di tyof the pl ea orthe w a iv e r,” s o it h a s b e e n w a iv e d . C o c k e rh a m , 2 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 7 . T h e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t M r. S m y lie’s a p p e a l fa lls w ith in the s cope of

hi s w ai ver , w hi ch w as ent er ed know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , and that e n fo rc in g th e w a iv e r w o u ld n o t re su lt i n a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . N o re a so n a b le j u r i s two u l d d i s a g r e e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we DE NY Mr . S my l i e ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A, D E N Y h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d IF P , an d D IS M IS S h is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge