FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 12 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 8- 00 23 0- CR-T-2 3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us STANLEY H ARVEY DAVIS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 0, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:St an le y Davi s ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s m od ifi cat io n o f a l um p- su m res ti tu ti on ord er t o re qu ire pe rio di c res ti tu ti on pa ym en ts of $ 10 0 p er m on th . Davi s co nt en ds th athe sh ou ldhave be enaffo rd edco un se l atth e d is tri ctco urt h eari ng on hi s m ot io n t o m od ify, andhe all eg es th atth e co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fi xi ng th e sc he du le d p aym en t am ou ntat $ 10 0 p er m on th . After c aref ul co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rd , we affi rm . I. Ri gh t t o C ou ns el The ex is te nc e o f a ri gh t t o c ou ns el is a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Webb , 56 5 F .3d78 9, 7 93 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Pro se fil in gs . . . are en ti tl edto li be ral co ns tru ct io n.” Med er os v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Altho ug h t he go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th atth e Dav is ’s cla im sh ou ldbe rev ie wedon ly for p la in erro r, Dav is ’s pr o s e m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l— if l ib eral ly con st ru ed —p res erv edhi s ar gu m en t fo r ap pe al . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f res ti tu ti on foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Ca ni v. Uni te d Sta tes , 33 1 F .3d12 10 , 12 12 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). In di ge ntpa rti es m ay

ha ve a ri gh t t o a n a tt orne y ba se d o n t hr ee d iff

eren t so ur ces . W

eb b , 56 5 F .3dat 7 94 . Firs t, a p arty m ay ha ve a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t’s g ua ran te e o f co un se l. “ It i s wel l-e st ab li sh edth at

2un de r th e Si xt h a ndFo urte en thAm en dm en ts , a cri m in al de fen dantis en ti tl edto

effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l dur in g t ria l, dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e o f a cap it al cas e, an d a t v ari ou s cr it ic al st ag es of acri m in al pro se cu ti on wher e subs tant ia l rig ht s o f a cri m in al accu se d m ay be affec te d.” W

il li ams v. Tu rp in , 87 F.3d12 04 , 12 09 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Alth ou gh a cri m in al de fen da ntha s a c on st itut io na l ri gh t t o c ou ns el du rin g the fir stap pe al , on ce tha t ap pe al is co m

pl et e, th e “ ob li ga ti on of e ns ur in g e qu al acce ss to th e co urt s y st em is no lo ng er co ns ti tu ti on al ly requ ire d.” Id. W e h av e “ co ns is te nt ly hel d t ha t the re i s no fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto co un se l i n p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs .” Bar bo ur v. Hal ey , 47 1 F .3d12 22 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Inso m e ci rcu m st an ces , def en da nt s al so have a ri gh t t o c ou ns el ba se d o n Fi fth Am en dm en t g ua ran te es of due pro ces s. Th e Supr em e Co urt h as in te rp ret ed th e Fi fth Am en dm en t t o re qu ire co un se l t o b e ap po in te d wh en ev er “ fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s” wou ldde m an d i t. W eb b , 56 5 F .3dat 7 94 (ci ti ng Gagno n v . Sca rp el li , 41 1 U.S. 7 78 , 79 0, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 75 6, 1 76 3 (1 97 3) ). In Gagno n , th e Supr em e Co urt fo un d tha t due pro ces s m ig hten ti tl e th e p et it io ne r to co un se l i n apro ba ti on rev oc at io n h eari ng , inwhi chres ol ut io n o f th e d is pu te requi redth e p et it io ne r to m ars ha l fa ct s an d e xam in e wit ne ss es . Se e 41 1 U.S. at78 6- 90 , 93 S. Ct. at

317 61 –6 4. Th e Co urt co nc lu de d tha t due pro ces s co nc ern in g t he ap po in tm en t o f

co un se l s ho ul d b e ex am in edon a cas e-b y -cas e b as is . Id. at 7 88 , 93 S. Ct. at17 63 . Fi na ll y , a de fen dantha s a s ta tu to ry rig htto co un se l u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 30 06 A. Accor di ng to th e st atut e, rep res en ta ti on is pro vi de d t o afin an ci al ly el ig ib le de fen da ntincert ai n c irc um st an ces , in cl ud in g: when th e d efen da ntis en ti tl edto ap po in tm en t o f co un se l u nd er the Six th Am en dm en t t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on ; whe n the de fen da nt“ face s the lo ss of l ib erty ina cas e, an d F ed eral law re qu ire s th e ap po in tm en t o f co un se l” ; an d wh en ev er the co urt d et erm in es th atth e in te res ts of jus ti ce s o re qu ire , in cl ud in g wh ena de fen dantsee ks rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 , 22 54 , or 2 25 5. 1 8 U.S.C. § 30 06 A(a)(1 ), (2 ). Sect io n 3 00 6A( c)—th e subs ect io n o n wh ic h Dav is rel ie s— st at es inpe rti ne ntpa rt: “ Dura tio n a nd Subs tit uti on of App oi ntments. — A pe rs on forwho m co un se l i s ap po in te d s ha ll be rep res en te d a t ev ery st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in gs fro m hi s i ni ti al ap pe aran ce b efo re th e Uni te d S ta te s m ag is tra te jud ge or t he co urt thr ou gh ap pe al , in cl ud in g a nc il la ry m at te rs ap pr op ria te to th e p ro ceed in gs .” 18 U.S.C. 30 06 A(c) (e m ph as is inhe ad in g or ig in al ). Dav is was n oten ti tl edto co un se l u nd er an y of t he se th ree s ou rces . Altho ug h ade fen da ntis en ti tl edto co un se l dur in g d ire ctap pe al , he d oe s n otha ve

4a Si xt h- Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el du rin g c ol la te ral att ack s o n h is sen te nc e. Se e

Bar bo ur , 47 1 F .3dat 1 22 7; Uni te d Sta tes v. Ber ge r , 37 5 F .3d12 23 , 12 26 –2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Mor e sp eci fic al ly, th e Si xt h Am en dm en t d oe s n otgu aran te e a rig htto co un se l ata he ari ng inwhi cha de fen da ntreque st s the co urt’s l en ie nc y in m od ifyin g ava li dl y

im po se d re st itut io n o rd er. Se e W eb b , 56 5 F .3dat 7 94 . Bec au se Davi s h adalr eady ex haus te d h is di rectap pe al , hi s co rres po nd in g S ix th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el ha s al read y be enex ti ng ui sh ed . Se e Bar bo ur , 47 1 F.3 d a t 1 22 7; W

il li ams , 87 F.3dat 1 20 9. Fu rth er, the di stric t co urt d idno t d ep riv e Dav is of h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t, as Davi s’s s el f-re pr es en ta ti on di d n otres ul t i n a fund am en ta ll y

un fai r he ari ng . Evenass um in g Dav is su ffer edfro m a le gi ti m at e m en ta l co nd it io n, i t d idno t i m pa ir h is ab il it y

to pre se nthi s m ot io n t o t he co urt o r to rep ort h is fin an ci al co nd it io n, s uc h t ha t the he ari ng was fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r. Dav is was abl e to pre se nta co m pl et e p ic tu re o f hi s fi na nc es th atall owe d t he co urt to arri ve at a$1 00 -p er-m on thpa ym en t s ch edul e. Beyondanun supp orte d al le ga ti on , Davi s i de nt ifi es no sp eci fic m en ta l o r ph y si cal di sabi li ty tha t i m pa ire d hi s ab il it y

to rece iv e a fai r di sp os it io n o f hi s cl ai m , andhe ot he rwis e id en ti fie s n o de fectth atde pr iv edhi m

of h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t.

5Fi na ll y , Davi s d oe s n otha ve a st atut ory rig htto co un se l. Sec ti on 30 06 A pr ov id es th atanin di ge ntde fen da ntis en ti tl edto ap po in te d c ou ns el when , am on g ot he r ci rcu m st an ces , th e Si xth Am en dm en t s o re qu ire s, fe de ral law m an da te s rep res en ta ti on , or t he de fen da ntface s the lo ss of l ib erty . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 30 06 A(a). No ne of t ho se co nd it io ns is pre se nthe re. Norwas t he he ari ng withi n th e am bi t o f th e “ an ci ll ary m atte rs ” co nt em pl at edby § 30 06 A(c), d es pi te Davi s’s cl ai m s t o the co ntrary. As we h av e n ot ed , th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry of § 30 06 A(c) in di cat es th at“ an ci ll ary m at te rs ” are “ li m it edto pro ceed in gs co m pr eh en de d wi th in th e act io n fo r whi chth e ap po in tm en t was m ad e.” In re L in ds ey , 87 5 F .2d15 02 , 15 08 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (ci ti ng H.R. Rep . No. 1 54 6 (1 97 0) , rep ri nt ed in 19 70 U.S.C.C.A.N. 39 82 , 39 89 ). W e h av e rea d “ an ci ll ary m at te rs ” to m ean“ th os e pr oc edur al m ech an is m s emplo y edwithi n t he co nt ex t o f a fed eral act io n t o i ns ur e th e p ro te ct io n o f a p ers on ’s rig ht s in th at ac ti on .” W

eb b , 56 5 F .3dat 7 95 (em ph as is inori gi na l) ( qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Davi s’s p res en t m ot io n i s n ota di rect ap pe al , andth e d is tri ctco urt h eari ng was n ei th er a s en te nc in g n ora res en te nc in g he ari ng . Davi s’s m ot io n t o m od ify or co rrec t a r es ti tu ti on ord er i m po se d n earl y te n years e arl ie r was no t co m pr eh en de d wi th in th e o rig in al act io n a ndis th eref or e

6no t “ an ci ll ary” to t ha t p ro ceed in g. Co ns eque nt ly, § 3 00 6A d oe s n otpro vi de a

st atut ory rig htto co un se l i n t hi s ca se . II. Res ti tu ti on Paym en t A di st ric t co urt m

us t o rd er re st itut io n p aym en ts acco un ti ng forth e fu ll am ou ntof e achvi ct im ’s lo ss es . 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( f)(1 )(A); Ca ni , 33 2 F .3dat 12 14 . The co nt ro ll in g s ta tu te pe rm it s m od ifi cat io n o f a res ti tu ti on ord er upo n a sh owi ng of am at eri al ch an ge inth e d efen da nt ’s cir cum st an ces . 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( k) . Whe n c al cu la ti ng th e ap pr op ria te pa ym en t s ch edul e, th e co urt m us t co ns id er: th e fi na nc ia l re so ur ces an d o th er as se ts of the de fen da nt , in cl ud in g whe th er an y

of t he se ass et s ar e joi nt ly con tro ll ed ; p ro jecte d e arn in gs an d o th er in co m e o f th e d efen da nt ; an d a ny fin an ci al ob li ga ti on s o f th e d efen da nt , in cl ud in g ob li ga ti on s t o d ep en de nt s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 64 (f)(2 ). A rest itut io n o rd er m ay di rect th e d efen da ntto m ak e o nl y no m in al pe rio di c p aym en ts whenth e fac ts of r eco rd de m on st rat e th at“ th e eco no m ic cir cu m st an ces of t he de fen da ntdo no t al lo w th e pa ym en t o f an y

am ou ntof ares ti tu ti on ord er, an d d o n otall ow fo r th e p aym en t o f th e fu ll am ou ntof ares ti tu ti onord er i n t he for es eeab le futur e und er an y reas on ab le sch edul e o f paym en ts .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( f)(3 )(B) .

7The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n o rd eri ng Davi s t o p ay $5 0 pe r pa y ch eck , fora to ta l $ 10 0- pe r-m on th res ti tu ti on pa ym en t. Dav is ’s subm is si on to th e d is tri ctco urt i nd ic at edth athe earn eda sa la ry of $ 67 6 p er two- weekpay pe rio d. Fu rth er, h e cl ai m edth athe wou ldbe un ab le to co m pl y with t he co urt’s or de r, la rg el y

du e to th e $ 60 0 p er m on th he was e xp ect edto pa y inren t. Ho wev er, he rece nt ly m ov edfro m

a ho us e fo r whi chhe pa id$3 50 pe r m on th inren t, an d h e di d n otex pl ai n wh y , when for cedto rel oc at e, he ch os e anap art m en t tha t co st$2 50 m or e p er m on th . Add it io na ll y , Davi s d oe s n otad dr es s the m on ey he cla im s t o b e owe d, i n e xc es s o f $1 00 ,00 0, o r it s i m pa cton hi s ab il it y

to co m pl y with t he co urt’s res ti tu ti on ord er. Mo re i m po rta nt ly, th e fi na nc ia l d oc um en ta ti on th atDavi s pr ov id edto th e co urt o ut li ne d h is fin an ci al res ou rces , hi s i nc om e, an d h is de bt s. The di st ric t co urt co ns id eredan d d is cu ss edth es e d oc um en ts with Dav is . Becau se th e co urt co ns id eredDavi s’s fi na nc ia l re so ur ces , pro jecte d e arn in gs an d o th er in co m e, an d fi na nc ia l o bl ig at io ns when arri vi ng at i ts res ti tu ti on pa y m en t sc he du le , itful fil le d i ts st atut ory m an da te . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 4( f)(2 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n o rd eri ng Davi s t o p ay $1 00 pe r m on th inres ti tu ti on . AFFIRMED.

8