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 SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1353 4
D. C. Docket N os. 99-0735 9-CV -SH

94-06114 CR-SH FLOYD MCLEAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, D ef en da nt- Appe llant. Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (S ep te m be r 8, 200 5) ON PETI TI ON FOR REHE ARING Before DU BIN A and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and LA W SO N*, District Judge. PE R CU RIA M:

____________________________ *Honora ble Hug h L awson, United States District Judge for the Middle D istrict of Geor g ia, sitti ng by desig nation.2

On J u l y 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e g o v er n m en tfi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r p an el re h ea ri n g . We dir ec te d th e ap pe lle e to f

ile ar es pons e to the gov er nm en t’ s pe tit ion
. O n A ugus t 24, 2005, the appellee com plied with our order. A ft er r ev ie w ing the pe tit iona nd the r es pons e the re to, w e gr an t the pe tit ion fo r re he ar ing , w ith dr awour pr ev iou s op ini on f

ile d onJun e 13, 200 5, a nd
su bs ti tu te th e fo ll owi ng in li eu th ereo f. T he S upr em e Co urt de ci de d th e ca se of M ay le v . F el ix , ___ U. S. ___, 125 S. Ct
. 256 2 ( June 23, 200 5) te n day s a ft er w e iss ue d an op ini on i n th is c as e, w he re in
we aff irm ed the district court’ s finding that McL ean’ s am ended claim relate d back to his o riginal, tim ely

filed § 2255 p etition. InM ay le , the S upr em e Co urt he ld:

“ A n a m en de d ha

be as pe tit ion
. . . doe s no t r el at e ba ck ( an d th er eb y

e sc ap e AE DP A’ s one-y ear tim e lim it) when it asserts a new ground for r elief supported by fac ts that differ in tim e and ty pe from those in th e original pleading set forth.” 125 S. Ct
. a t 25 66. A lth oughthe Co urt’ s a ppr oa chto int er

pr et ing a m en dm en ts t o pl ead in gs in th is co nt ex t was alr ead y th e la w in th is cir cu it , see D avenport v. United States , 217 F. 3d 13 41, 1344-46 (11th Cir. 2000), its opi nion provided fu rth er g ui da nc e in th is area . See M ay le , 125 S
. Ct
. a t 25 69- 2575
. In M ay le , the def

endant-appellant tim ely

alleged that his conv iction vi olated the F if th A m en dm en t be ca

use vid eo ta

pe d st at em en ts o f a w itn es s w er e play ed f or3

th e jury in v io la ti on of h is rig ht to co nf ro nt th e wit ne ss . Id . a t 2566
. How ever, fi ve m onths a ft er

the one -y ear lim itatio n im pose d un de r the A E D PAe xpi re d, he
m ove d to a m en d hi s pe tit ionto ad d anothe r cl ai m r eg ar din g hi s pr etri al state m en ts to th e p ol ic e. Id
. T he m ag istrate j udge de nie d th e am en dm en t, r ea soni ng the cl ai m did not r el at e ba ck : [T he de fe ndant’ s] a lle ge dly inv olu ntary

state m en ts t o pol ic e did

not a ri se out of the sam e co nduc t, tr an sa ct ion , or oc curr en ce a s th e vid eo ta pe d in te rr oga tio n of pr ose cu tio n w itn es s K en ne th W ill ia m s. 125 S. Ct. at 2568. T he m agistrate j udge also foun d that “ it did n ot suffice that [the D efendant’ s] Fifth and Sixth Am endm ent claim s attack the sam e cr im inal convictio n.” Id . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt t h en ad o p t ed t h e mag i s t ra t e ju d g e’s
reco m m en da ti on fordi sm is sa l o f th e d efen da nt ’s cla im
. Id
. On appeal, however, the N inth C ir cu it re ve rs ed the dis tr ic t c ourt, f

ind ing tha t the de fe ndant’ s “ tr ia l and
co nvi ct ionin sta te c ourt” c onst itu te d a“ tr an sa ct ion ” w ith in the m eanin g of Ru le 15 (c)( 2)
. Id
. The Supr em e Co ur t re ve rs edth e Nin th Cir cu it
. Id
. a t 25 66. I n r ea ch ing it s hol din g, the Co urt stre sse d th at “ [i n in te rp re tin g F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 15( c) (2 )’ s r el at ion ba ck pr ovi sio n inthi s c ont ex t, ] the ke y w or ds are c ondu ct , tr an sa ct ion , or oc curr en ce . ” 125 S
. Ct
. a t 25 70. T he Co urt f urthe r re as one d:W e rev ie w de nov o the m ag istrate j udge ’ s co nc lus ion s of law a s a dopt ed by 1 th e di st ric t co ur t. W

ilc ox v. F la. D ep t. of C

orr ., 158 F.3d 1209 , 1211 n.4 (11th Cir. 4 H ab ea s C or

pus Ru le 2( c)
. . . ins tr

uc ts p et iti one rs to spe ci fy a ll av ai la ble gr ound s f

or r el ie f an d to state the fa ct s su ppor tin g e ac h gr ound
. U nde r tha t r ule , [ the de fe ndant’ s] Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause c la im

w oul d be pl ead eddi sc ret el y , as wo ul d h is sel f-i nc riminat io n c la im
. E ac h se pa rate c onge ri es of f ac ts s uppo rt ing the gr ound s for re lief, the Rule suggests , w ould delineate an “ occurrence .” [T he defendant’ s] approach, the approach tha t pr ev ai le d inthe N inth C ir cu it, is boun dle ss b y co m pa ri son. A m isc el lany

of c la im s f or r el ie f co uld

be ra ise d la te r rathe r than so one r an d r el at e ba ck , f or “ conduct, transaction, or occ urrence” would be defined to encom pass any pretrial, trial, or post-trial err or that co ul d p ro vi de a ba si s fo r ch al le ng in g t he co nv ic ti on . An ap pr oa chof

tha t br ea dth
. . . vie w s “ oc curr en ce ” at too h i g h al e v e l o f

g e n e r a l i t y. 125 S. Ct
. a t 25 73 ( quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). R el at ionba ck , the Co urt e xpl ai ne d, is onl y

a llo w ab le “ w he n th e cl ai m s a dde d by a m en dm en t ari se f r o m t h e s a me c o r e f

a c t s a s t h e t i me l y f

i l e dc l a i ms , a n dn o tw h e n t h e n e w c l a i ms depend up on events separate in ‘ both tim e and ty pe’ from the originally

raised episodes.” Id

. at 2 57 1 (c it at io n o m it te d)
. In the instant case, under Mayle an d D av en

port , w e cannot say

that Mc L ean’ s a m en de d c la im r eg ar din g hi s c ouns el ’ s f ai lur e to s howhim

avid eo ta pe of adr ug transa ct ion , a nd the a ff ec t this w oul d have ha d onple a ne got ia tio ns, re la te s ba ck

to an y of his ti m el y

f ile d § 2 255 cl ai m s. T he m ag istrate j udge 11998 ). 5

er ro ne ousl y c onc lud ed

Mc L ean’ s c la im

r el at ed ba ck statin g: “ A lth oughthi s pr ec ise iss ue w as not

f ull y a rt ic ula te d ina ny

of Mc L ean’ s pr ior

ple ad ing s, he
co m pla ine d th ro ugho ut h is p le ad ing s th at c ouns el did

not a de qua te ly

pr ep ar e fo r tr ia l. ” T he m ag istrate j udge ’ s r at ion al e he re is gui lty of the “ hig h le ve l of ge ne ra lity ” the S upr em e Co urt w ar ne d a ga ins t i n M

ay le , a s a plethora of potential cl ai m s r eg ar din g pr etri al a nd tri al e rr or s c anf it unde r the um

br el laof f ai lur e to ad equa te ly

pr ep ar e fo r tr ia l. 125 S
. Ct
. a t 25 73. Ac cordingly , based on the foregoing discus sion, we reverse the district
co urt’ s or de r gr an tin g M cL ean’ s § 2 255 m oti on. REVERSED.6