A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 6, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E 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. M AN UEL M ON TI EL,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 2112 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR - 1 7 8 8 - M V)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , P O R F IL IO , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

M a n u e l M o n tiel a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n o n a ju ryv e rd ict o f p o ss e ss io n w ith inten t t o d istri b u te 50 g ram s o r m o re o f m etha m p h etam ine. M r. M o n ti el’s couns el fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nders v. C al i f or ni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , and m oves forl eave t o w i thdr aw as couns el . Fort he r eas ons s etoutbel ow , w e gr ant-2-

c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l, s ee i d. at744 ( di r ect i ng d ism issal of

ap p ea l up o n fin d ing ca se “ w h o ll yfrivo lou s”). B ackgr ound O n M ay31, 2006, as he w as dr i vi ng on I nt er s t at e 25 i n N ew M exi co, M r . M ont i el w as s t opped fors peedi ng. I n chec ki ng the l aw - enfor cement comput ers y s t em t o ver i fyM r . M ont i el ’ s document s , the pol i ce offi cerl earned that the p i cku p truck w as r egis t ered t o M r. M on t i el and that hi s dri ver’ s l i cense had bee n s us pended. T he off i ceral s o l earned thatM r . M ont i el ’ s vehi cl e had p a s s e d th ro u g h a c h e c k p o in t a t th e M e x ic a n b o rd e r a b o u t tw o h o u rs e a rl ie r. W h e n th e o ffice r a sk e d M r. M o n tiel if h e h a d d riv e n f

ro m M e x ico , h e d e n ied it u n til c o n f

ro n ted w ith th e in fo rm a tio n to th e c o n tra ry . T h e n M r. M o n tiel sa id h is br otherm us thave t aken hi s t ruck i nt o M exi co, even though the dr i vi ng t i m e fr om th e c h e c k p o in t to th e tr a ffic -s to p lo c a tio n w a s a b o u t tw o h o u rs . A t th a t p o in t, M r. M o n tie l s u g g e s te d th a t th e o ffic e r s e a rc h h is tru c k . A drug dog w as obt ai ned and i tal er t ed t o the fr ontof the truck. O ffi cer s then di s cover ed 348 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne w r apped i n cel l ophane a nd conce al ed i n the truck’ s engi ne compar t m ent . Fur thers ear chi ng r evea l ed a gl as s pi pe of the type u sed fo r i ng est i ng m et ham ph et am i ne in the truck bed and ov er $180 0 in cash on M r . M ont i el ’ s per s on. L abor at or yt es t i ng of the s ubs t ance found i n the truck s h o w e d th a t 8 7 .7 g ra m s o f it w a s p u re m e th a m p h e ta m in e .C ouns el s ay s M r . M ont i el does notw antt o appea l hi s s ent ence of 120 1 m o n th s ’ i n c a rc e ra tio n to b e fo llo w e d b yfiv e y e a rs ’ u n s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . M r. M o n tie l’ s p ro s e b ri e f d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e s e n te n c e .

-3- M r . M ont i el w as t aken t o the l ocal s her i ff’ s depart m ent . B eca us e the fac i l i tydi d nothave a cel l forhol di ng det ai nees , M r . M ont i el and an offi cers t ood i n the hal l w ayw hi l e anotheroffi cercompl et ed pape rw or k. D ur i ng thatt i m e, M r. M o n tiel a sk e d th e o ffice r, “W h o ra tted o n m e ? ” R . V o l. 4, a t 5 4 . W h e n to ld thatno one had, he s ai d thathe di d notbel i eve thatbeca us e he ha d been s t opped b e fo re , b u t th e ite m s h a d n o t b e e n fo u n d . Id. M r . M o n t i e l wa s c h a r g e d wi th p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e 5 0 g r a ms o rm o r e o f

m e th a m p h e t a m i n e . F o l l o w i n g a j u ry tr i a l a tw h i c h h e d i d n o tt e s t i f y, he w as convi ct ed as char ged. I n t hi s appea l , M r . M ont i el has r es ponded t o the A nd ers b rie f, arg u in g th a t h is a tto rn e yp re v e n ted h im f ro m tes tify in g d e sp ite h is desi re t o do so and that his at t orney provided i neffect i ve assi st ance. H e al so 1 s e e k s d iffe re n t a p p e lla te c o u n s e l. D is cus s i on W e denyM r . M ont i el ’ s r eques tfordi ffe r entappel l at e couns el . W e have f u l l y e x a m i n e d th e p r o c e e d i n g s a s r e q u i r e d b y A nd ers and conc l ude thatt he appea l i s w i thoutm er i t . Fi r s t , as couns el poi nt s out , t he r ecor d s how s t hatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n the gui l tyver di ct . Second, both of M r. M o n tiel’s a rg u m e n ts a re b a se d o n c laim s o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, w h ich sh o u ld b e b ro u g h t in c o llate ra l p ro c e e d in g s, n o t o n d ire c t ap p e a l.-4-

“To sus t ai n a convi ct i on forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, the governm entm us tpr ove that( 1) the defendantpos s es s ed the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ; ( 2) knew thathe had i t ; and ( 3) pos s es s ed i tw i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e i t . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R am i r ez , 479 F. 3d 1229, 1249 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( quot at i on o m itte d ), pet i t i on f

orcer t . f

i l ed( U . S. Sept . 10, 2007) ( N o. 07- 7189) . “Pos s es s i on m aybe ei theract i ve orcons truct i ve . . . . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Tri ana , 477 F. 3d 1 1 8 9 , 1 1 9 4 (1 0 th C ir .) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 9 2 8 (2 0 0 7 ). T he governm entm ays how cons truct i ve pos s es s i on “w her e the defendanthas the p o w e r to e x e rc ise c o n tro l o r d o m in io n o v e r th e item ” o r h a s “ a n a p p re c iab le abi l i tyt o gui de the des t i nyof the drug. ” R am i r ez , 479 F. 3d at1250 ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “[A ] j urym ayi nferi nt entt o di s tr i but e fr om the pos s es s i on of l ar ge quant i t i es of drugs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P ul i do- Jacobo , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 1 (1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e d e n o v o w h e n e v a l u a t i n g i t s s u ffi c i e n c y,

“ tak in g th e e v id e n c e — b o th d ire c t an d c irc u m sta n tial, to g e th e r w ith th e re a so n a b le i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n ther efr om — i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent . ” Tri ana , 477 F. 3d at1194. W e fi r s tconcl ude thatthe evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h that M r . M ont i el pos s es s ed the drugs and knew he pos s es s ed them. T heyw er e l ocat ed i n a p i c k u p tru c k r e g i s t e r e d t o h i m th a th e w a s d r i v i n g a tth e t i m e o f d i s c o v e ry, and ther e w as a drug pi pe i n the truck. M or eover , hi s s t at ementt o the pol i ce offi certhathe di d notbel i eve thatno one had a l er t ed the author i t i es beca us e he-5-

h a d a v o id e d d is c o v e ry b e fo re in d ic a te s th a t h e k n e w th e d ru g s w e re in h is v e h ic le . W e f u rth er c o n clud e tha t th e e v iden ce w as su ffici en t t o sh o w that M r. M ont i el i nt ended t o di s tr i but e the met hamphet ami ne. T he quant i tyof drugs w as s uffi ci entfort he j uryt o i nferthathe i nt ended t o di s tr i but e them. A s a pol i ce o ffic e r t e s tifie d , th e a m o u n t w a s fa r t o o m u c h to b e in te n d e d fo r p e rs o n a l u s e . See R . V o l. 4 at 65 (“[ n ]ot ev en clos e” to b eing a p erso n al-use am o u n t) . In addi t i on, the l ar ge amountof ca s h M r . M ont i el w as carry i ng s uppor t ed an in fe re n c e th a t h e w a s in th e d ru g -d is tr ib u tio n b u s in e s s . See Mi nnerv. Ker by , 30 F. 3d 1311, 1316 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( s t at i ng “r el at i vel yl ar ge mount of ca s h” s u p p o rt e d fin d in g th a t d e fe n d a n t in te n d e d to d is tr ib u te d ru g s h e p o s s e s s e d ). A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i th M r . M ont i el ’ s couns el thata cha l l enge t o the s u ffic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e is f

ri v o lo u s . W e turn t o M r . M ont i el ’ s cl ai m s thathi s att or neypr event ed hi m fr om t es t i fy i ng des pi t e hi s des i r e t o do s o and thathi s att orneypr ovi ded i neffect i ve as s i s t ance . W e have hel d thata r i ght - t o- t es t i fycl ai m i s t o be tr eat ed as an in e ffe c tiv e -a s s is ta n c e -o f-c o u n s e l c la im . C a n n o n v . Mu lli n , 383 F. 3d 1152, 1170 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h ere fo re, w e c o n clud e tha t al l of the issu es ra ised in M r. M ont i el ’ s pr o s e br i ef c oncern the i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , cl ai m s that

“ s h o u l d b e b r o u g h ti n c o l l a t e r a l p r o c e e d i n g s r a th e rth a n o n d i r e c ta p p e a l f r o m a convi ct i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ooks , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h is i s s o “t o ens ur e thatw e ar e pr ovi ded w i th a deve l oped fa ctual r ecor d of the-6-

event s . ” Id. C ons equent l y , w e di s m i s s M r . M ont i el ’ s cl ai m s of i neffect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. See i d. ( hol di ng s uch cl ai m s “pr es um pt i vel ydi s m i s s i bl e”) (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). C oncl us i on M r. M o n tiel’s re q u e st fo r d iffe re n t co u n se l o n a p p e a l is D E N IE D . H is couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw i s G R A N T E D . H i s cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e D I SM I SSE D beca us e theyw er e notpr oper l ybr oughti n thi s di r ect a p p e a l. H is re m a in in g c la im s a re D IS M IS S E D a s f ri v o lo u s . 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