FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 31, 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, N o. 07- 5098 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) WALT E R B RO WN EWI NG,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 0 5 9 7 - CVE- P J C) ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CR- 0 6 8 - 0 4 - CV E)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. W al t erB r ow n E w i ng, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forr el i ef u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See id . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( r equi r i ng C O A t o appea l deni al o f § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n ). B ec au se n o rea so n ab le j u ri st co u ld co n clud e tha t M r. E w ing ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s h o u ld h a v e b e e n re s o lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r, s ee Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 485 ( 2000) , w e denyhi s appl i cat i on fora C O A and d ism iss th is a p p e a l. O n J une 17, 2005, M r . E w i ng pl eade d gui l tyi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt fo r t h e N o rt h e rn D is tr ic t o f O k la h o m a to c h a rg e s o f c o n s p ir a c y , s ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , a n d p o s s e s s io n o f s to le n m a il, s ee id . § 1708. H e had e nt er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementthatw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o a di r ectappea l ( exce ptt o chal l enge-2-

a se n ten c e in e x c e ss o f th e sta tu to rym a x im u m ) a n d “ w a iv e [ d ] th e rig h t to col l at er al l yatt ack the convi ct i on ors ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, exce pt fo r c laim s b a se d o n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l w h ich c h a llen g e th e v a lid ity of the gui l typl ea orthi s w ai ver . ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 80 at12. T he courts ent ence d hi m t o a pr i s on t erm of 60 m onths foreac h offe ns e, the t erm s t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y , and or der ed hi m t o payr es t i tut i on of $111, 540. 81 and a s peci al m onet aryas s es s m entof $200. 00. On Oc t o b e r2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , M r . Ewi n g fi l e d a mo t i o n fo rr e l i e f u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 25 5. H e al l eged that he had recei ved i neffect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel becau se hi s couns el had ( 1) fai l ed t o appea l hi s s ent ence forbei ng i n exce s s of the s t atut orym axi m um ; ( 2) “fa i l ed t o not e and a r gue thatthe s ent ence of 120 m ont hs confi nementvi ol at ed due pr oces s beca us e the s ent ence w as gr eat erthan the ‘s ta tu to ry m a x im u m ’ a llo w a b le s e n te n c e fo r t h e o ffe n s e (s ) o f c o n v ic tio n ,” R . V ol . I , D oc. 199 at3; and ( 3) fai l ed t o appea l the i m pos i t i on of cons ecut i ve t erm s of i m pr i s onm ent . T he di s tr i ctcour tenfor ced M r . E w i ng’ s pl ea- agr eement wa i v e ra n d d e n i e d h i s § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n . I ta l s o d e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra CO A, butperm i t t ed hi m t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thatM r . E w i ng’ s w ai verw as enfor cea bl e under Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). U n d er Hahn a n a p p e llate w ai veri s enfor cea bl e i f “( 1) . . . the di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the w a iv e r o f

a p p e llate rig h ts; (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-3-

w a iv e d h is a p p e llate rig h ts; a n d (3 ) . . . 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 mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” Id . a t 1 3 2 5 . T h e th ir d c o n d itio n is m e t u n le s s “ [ 1 ] . . . th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re lie d o n a n im p e rm is s ib le fa c to r s u c h a s ra c e , [ 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 r e n d e r s th e wa i v e ri n v a l i d , [ 3 ] . . . th e s e n t e n c e e x c e e d s th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m, or[4] . . . the w ai veri s otherw i s e unl aw ful . . ” A w ai veri s “unl aw ful ” i f the err or s er i ous l yaffect s the “‘ fai r nes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of the j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” Id . at1327 ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 507 U . S. 725, 732 (1 9 9 3 )) . W e a p p ly th e s a m e a n a lysis to w a iv e rs o f c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . S e e , e .g ., Uni t ed Stat es v. Wal es , N o. 05- 3445, 2006 W L 950655, at*2 ( 10th C i r . A pr . 13, 2 0 0 6 ) (un p u b li sh ed ). W i th r es pectt o the fi r s tcondi t i on, the di s tr i ctcour tpoi nt ed outthat M r. E w in g w a iv e d a ll p o stc o n v ictio n rig h ts e x c e p t fo r c h a llen g e s to th e v a lid ity of hi s pl ea orw ai ver . B eca us e M r . E w i ng’ s i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- couns el cl ai m s i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on di d noti nvol ve the val i di tyof hi s pl ea orw ai ver , t he c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t h is c h a llen g e s fe ll “s q u a re lyw ith in ” th e sc o p e o f h is col l at er al - att ack w ai ver . R . V ol I , D oc. 215 at8. R egar di ng t he s econd c ondi t i on, the di s tr i ctcour tobs erved thatM r . E w i ng had s i gned the pl ea a gr eementand the pet i t i on t o ent era pl ea a gr eement , both of w h ich sp e c ifica llya c k n o w led g e d th a t h e w a s e n ter in g th e a g re e m e n t k n o w in g ly and vol unt ar i l y . T he courtal s o poi nt ed outthati thad conduc t ed a thor ough pl ea-4-

col l oquyunderFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11, dur i ng w hi ch M r . E w i ng a c k n o w l e d g e d th a th i s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n w a i v e rw a s k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a ry. A s forthe thi r d condi t i on, the di s tr i ctcourtpoi nt ed outthatM r . E w i ng had notcont ended thatr ace had eve rbeen a fac t or ; hi s i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance - ofcouns el cl ai m s di d notr el at e t o the negot i at i on of the w ai ver ; hi s s ent ence di d not exce ed, al though i tequal ed, the s t atut or ym axi m um ( i ndeed, the pl ea a gr eement speci fi ed thatthe m axim um sent ence h e cou l d recei ve w as t en y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent) ; and there had been no err or that affect ed h i s subst anti al ri gh t s. No r e a s o n a b l e j u r i s tc o u l d d e b a t e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s ru l i n g . T h e r e fo r e , we D E N Y M r. E w in g ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge