* A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee- j udge pane l has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al as s i s t ance i n the d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ; 10th C IR . R . 34 . 1(G ). T he cau se i s ther efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol 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 IR . R . 32. 1.

M r . P a c h e c o - H u i z a rf

i l e d h i s M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f o u rd a ys 1 aft erthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, butpr i ort o the entryof j udgm ent . Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of A pp el l at e P rocedu re, 4(b)( 2), “[a] noti ce of app eal fi l ed af

t er the co urtann ou nces a

(c o n tin u e d ...) FI LED Uni te d St at e s C our t 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

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. J OSE GUST ABO PACHE CO- HUI ZAR, D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 1139 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR - 3 3 5 - M S K)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C ir c u it J u d g e s . D efe ndant - A ppel l antJ os e G us t abo Pache co- H ui zar , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng p ro se , ap p ea ls from h is co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e f o r on e c o u n t of

il lega l r ee n try s ubs equentt o deport at i on foran aggr avat ed fe l ony , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . H e has t i m el yappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 deci s i on, s ent ence , oror der– butbefor e the entryof the j udgm entoror der– i s tr eat ed as fi l ed on the dat e of a nd aft erthe entry . ” See ge ner al l y U ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 847 F. 2d 622, 623 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( en banc ) . T her efor e, w e tr eatthe M ar ch 27, 2007 not i ce of appea l as havi ng been f i l ed on A pr i l 3, 2007, the dat e on w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed ju d g m e n t. 2 a n d w e d is m is s th e a p p e a l. I . BA CKGROUND I n 1995, M r . Pachec o- H ui zarw as convi ct ed of a n offe ns e cl as s i fi ed, pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) , as an aggr avat ed fe l ony– pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a sch ed u le II con tr o ll ed su b stan ce . H e w as su b seq u en tl yd ep o rt ed . A cc o rdin g to M r. P a c h e c o -H u iza r, h e late r re e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s b e c a u se th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e to ld hi m , dur i ng hi s 1996 deport at i on hear i ng, thathe coul d r eent erthe U ni t ed St at es aft erfi ve y ears . A l though i ni t i al l ypl eadi ng notgui l ty , on J anuary2, 2007, M r . Pachec o- H ui zar change d hi s pl ea t o gui l ty . T he governm entagr eed t o r ecomm end a s ent ence atthe bot t om of the appl i cabl e advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange. A ts ent enci ng, nei therthe governm entnorM r . Pachec o- H ui zarobj ect ed t o the fa ct s ort o the s ent enci ng cal cul at i ons i n t he pr es ent ence r eport . Fur ther , M r . Pachec o- H ui zars oughtno departur es orvar i ance s fr om the r ecomm ended s ent ence . A ft erhear i ng ar gum entand appl y i ng t he a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d M r . P a c h e c o - H u i z a rt o f o r tyse v e n m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t – th e b o tto m o f th e a p p lica b le a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e – to be fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. M r . Pachec o- H ui zarthen fi l ed a not i ceT h e a ssist an t fed era l pu b li c d ef en d er tha t w e a p p o inted to ac t as M r. 2 P a c h e c o -H u iza r’s a p p e llate c o u n se l als o re p re se n ted h im in th e d istric t co u rt.

S e e A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). 3 3 o f a p p e a l. M r . Pachec o- H ui zar ’ s couns el , fi l ed an A nd ers b rie f “ c o n c lu d [ in g ] th a t th is 2 3 a p p e a l is f

riv o lo u s in th a t th e re is n o c h a llen g e to th e v a lid ityo f th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilty pl ea nort o t he def

endant ’ s s ent ence , w hi ch i s atthe bott om of the advi s orygui del i ne r ange. ” A nd ers B r. at 2 . M r. P a c h e c o -H u iza r, in a su p p lem e n tal b rie f , sta tes th a t h is appea l i s bas ed on hi s couns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s forfai l i ng t o chal l enge the 1996 deport at i on or deras he w as depr i ved of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s dur i ng the deport at i on h e a ri n g . See Suppl ement al B r i ef i n Suppor tof A ppel l ant ’ s O peni ng B r i ef, at4, 6- 7. I I . DI S CU S S I ON “I neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s s houl d be br oughti n col l at er al p roc ee d ing s, n o t on d ir ec t app ea l. S u ch claim s b rou g h t on d ir ec t app ea l are pr es um pt i vel ydi s m i s s i bl e, and vi r tual l yal l w i l l be di s m i s s ed. ” U n itedS ta tes v . Sa m u e ls , 493 F. 3d 1187, 1193 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. G al l ow ay , 56 F. 3d 1239, 1240 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ) ( en banc ) ) . T hi s rul e as s ur es thatw e r evi ew i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l c la im s o n ly w h e n th e f a c tu a l r e c o rd is f

u lly d e v e lo p e d . U

ni 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 ). A lth o u g h w e m a yu n d e rta k e a re v iew in th e ra re c a s e w h e re th e re c o rd is s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d , se e Sa m u e ls , 493 F. 3d at1193, th is is n o t o n e o f

th o se ra re c a se s. M o re o v e r, ev e n a ss u m in g th e re c o rd w a s a d e q u a tely4

devel oped, w e w oul d be r el uct antt o undert ake r evi ew beca us e “[ a] n opi ni on bythe di s tr i ctcourti s a val uabl e ai d t o appel l at e r evi ew form anyr eas ons , notthe l eas tof w hi ch i s thati n m os tcas es the di s tr i ctcourti s fami l i arw i th the pr ocee di ngs and has obs erved couns el ' s per form ance , i n cont ext , fi r s thand. ” B r ooks , 438 F. 3d at1242 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( quot i ng G al l ow ay , 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 0 ). I I I . CO NC L US I ON B ec au se M r. P ac h ec o -H u izar’s claim s o f in ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel are prem ature, the ap peal i s DI S M I S S ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge