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

### Ju n e13,2006 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, N o. 05- 5099 v . N. Di s t . o f Ok l a h o ma KA THR YN HELTZEL,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 0 0 9 4 4 - HDC and 98- C R - 00111- H D C - 2)

OR DER B efor e HA RTZ , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. O n Ja n u a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , K a th ryn H e ltze l p lea d e d g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e appr oxi m at el yfi ve pounds of m ethamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . She w as s ent ence d t o 180 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fi ve y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se , an d a fin e o f $ 4 ,0 0 0 . S h e a p p e a led h e r c o n v ictio n to t hi s cour t , and w e affi r m ed. O n D ece m ber20, 2004, s he fi l ed a t i m el yhabea s m ot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he N or t hern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed herm ot i on, and deni ed a c e rt ific a te o f

a p p e a la b ility (C O A ), s ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 ) ( re q u ir in g C O A ). M s . H el t zel now s eeks a C O A fr om t hi s court . W e denya C O A and di s m i s s t he a p p e a l.-2-

I . BA CKGROUND I n heror i gi nal § 2255 m ot i on M s . H el t zel r ai s ed cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , i l l egal s ear ch and s ei zur e, fal s e arr es t , and br eac h of her pl ea a gr eement . O n J anuary13, 2005, s he fi l ed a mot i on t o amend her§ 2255 m ot i on, r ai s i ng a claim u n d er B l akel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and at t achi ng num er ous exhi bi t s , i ncl udi ng tr ans cr i pt s of herchange - of- pl ea he ar i ng a n d s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d h e r m o tio n to a m e n d . T he governm entcount er ed M s . H el t zel ’ s al l egat i ons of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance w i t h an affi davi tfr om heratt or ney . T he affi davi ts t at ed thats he had m etw i t h M s . H el t zel 25 t i m es , t hats he had di s cus s ed w i th M s . H el t zel t he s ent ence s he fa ced, and that , i n heropi ni on, M s . H el t zel had ent er ed the pl ea vol unt ar i l yand know i ngl y . T he governm ental s o s ubm i t t ed a c opyof M s . He l t z e l ’ s p e t i t i o n t o e n t e ra p l e a o f g u i l ty , wh i c h s t a t e d , “ I b e l i e v e my a t t o r n e yh a s d o n e a l l t h a ta n y o n e c o u l d d o t o c o u n s e l a n d a s s i s tme , AND I AM SA T I SFIED W I T H T H E A D V I C E A N D H E L P SH E W A S G I V E N M E . ” R . D oc. 97 A t t ach. 1 at4. I n addi t i on, t he governm entpoi nt ed t o the tr ans cr i ptof M s . H el t zel ’ s change - of- pl ea he ar i ng, w hi ch s how ed thats he under s t ood the pl ea a g re e m e n t a n d th e ri g h ts s h e w a s g iv in g u p . M s . H e ltz e l file d n o re s p o n s e . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the cl ai m s othert han i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel b ec au se M s. H elt ze l had n o t r aised them o n d ir ec t app ea l. T h e c o u rt found thatherfai l ur e t o r ai s e the i s s ues on di r ectappea l coul d notbe exc us ed-3-

b e c a u se M s. H e ltze l h a d “ n o t sta ted a n yfa c ts o r p re se n ted a n ye v id e n c e to s uppor tanyof the cl ai m s s he has r ai s ed, ” D i s tr i ctC our tO r derof M ar ch 17, 2005 ( her ei naft ert he M ar ch O r der ) at2, and ther efor e had nots how n caus e and p reju d ic e o r a f

u n d a m e n ta l m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . T h e d istri ct co u rtalso d en ied th e c lai m u n d er B lakel y (and assum ed ital so r el i ed on Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), d ec ided the d ayb efo re M s . H el t zel fi l ed her m ot i on t o amend) , beca us e M s . H el t zel ’ s s ent ence w as fi nal befor e thos e Supr eme C our tdeci s i ons w er e hande d dow n. A s forM s . H el t zel ’ s num er ous al l egat i ons of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed thatas partof herpl ea a gr eement , M s . H el t zel h a d w a iv e d h e r r ig h t to a p p e a l a n d h e r r ig h t to a tta c k h e r s e n te n c e c o lla te ra lly. T h e c o u rtstat ed that u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. C ocke r ham , 237 F. 3d 1179, 1183 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) , t hi s w ai verw as enfor ceabl e exc eptas t o i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance o f-c o u n s e l c la im s re la tin g to th e v a lid ity o f h e r p le a a n d th e w a iv e r i ts e lf. B ec au se M s. H elt ze l did n o t cha ll en g e the v ali d ityo f h er w aive r, the d istri ct co u rt found thatheronl ycogni zabl e cl ai m w as an i neffect i venes s cl ai m r el at i ng t o t he v a lid ityo f

h e r g u iltyp lea

— th a t as a re su lt o f th e in a c tio n s o f

h e r a tto rn e ysh e d id notent eri nt o t he pl ea know i ngl yorvol unt ar i l y . T he courtl i s t ed the fol l ow i ng as M s. H e ltze l’s a lleg a tio n s in th is re g a rd : ( 1) She w as coer ced i nt o ent er i ng the pl ea a gr eement [; ] ( 2) C ouns el s houl d have s afe guar ded herdur i ng negot i at i ons w i th the governm ent beca us e of he rm ent al i l l nes s [; ] ( 3) C ouns el fai l ed t o i nform herof-4-

herr i ght s [; ] ( 4) C ouns el fai l ed t o i nform herof herr i ghtt o m ake obj ect i ons t o t he pl ea a gr eement [; ] ( 5) C ouns el fai l ed t o expl ai n the p lea a g re e m e n t o r g iv e h e r su fficie n t ti m e to re a d a n d u n d e rsta n d it[;] ( 6) C ouns el fai l ed t o s afe guar d herdur i ng the pl ea a nd s ent enci ng hear i ng as an ac t i ve advoc at e[; and] ( 7) She nevers aw the pr es ent ence r epor tunt i l couns el i nform ed heraft ers ent enci ng that s h e w a s n o l o n g e rh e ra t t o rn e y. M a rc h O rd e r a t 3 . N o tin g th e a b se n c e o f e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g M s. H e ltze l’s c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l, th e c o u rt d e n ie d th e c la im . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d en ial o f a co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). T h is st an d ard re q u ire s “ a d e m o n stra tio n th a t . . . inc lu d e s s h o w in g th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , fort hatm at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 48 4 (200 0) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). In ot her w ords, t he ap pli cant m ust s how t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r es ol ut i on of the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w as ei ther “deba t abl e orw r ong. ” Id . If the ap pli cat i on w as denied on proced ural groun ds, t he appl i cantfac es a doubl e hur dl e. N otonl ym us tt he appl i cantm 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 r i ght , buts he mustal s o s how “thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e . . . w hethert he di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id . “W her e a pl ai n pr ocedur al bari s pr es entand t he d i stri ctcou rti s corr ectt o invok e i tt o d i spose of a case, a reas on able j uri st-5-

coul d notconcl ude ei t hert hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on or t hatt he pet i t i oners houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Id . O n appea l M s . H el t zel r ai s es a numberof cl ai m s , s om e appa r ent l ynot r ai s ed bel ow . I n herpl ea a gr eement , how ever , s he w ai ved herr i ghtt o r ai s e a col l at er al at t ack on he rconvi ct i on, exce ptforcl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of cou nsel . T herefore, t he o nlycl ai m s w e need con si der ar e i neffect i ven ess cl ai m s, un l ess s he can successful l ychall eng e t he w ai ver or the p l ea agreem ent as a w h o le. B u t th e e v id e n c e re fe re n c e d in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re sp o n se to M s . H el t zel ’ s § 2255 m ot i on es t abl i s hes t he l ack of m er i tt o heral l egat i ons of in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . A nd on appea l s he does notpoi ntt o anyfur therevi dence s uppor t i ng hercl ai m s , nordoes s he cont end thats he coul d have pr ovi ded furt her evi dence i n di s t r i ctcour ti f gi ven the opportuni ty . A l l s he adds t o heral l egat i ons i n di s t r i ctcour tar e copi es of a s er i es of l et t er s fr om an att orneyi n the Feder al Publ i c D efe nder ’ s offi ce i nform i ng herof the cons equenc es of pur s ui ng herdi r ect a p p e a l i n t h i s c o u r t . An d e v e n we r e we t o c o n s i d e rt h i s e v i d e n c e , wh a ti ts h o ws i s noti neffect i ve r epr es ent at i on but , on the contr ary , verycons ci ent i ous and c a p a b le e ffo rt s b yth e a tto rn e y . A ccor di ngl y , no r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d concl ude th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g re lie f.-6-

W e D E N Y a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e 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