T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue, cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R
. A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R
. 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned ** u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t m a ter iallya ss ist th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l
. See Fed. R
. A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R
. 34. 1( g)
. T he ca s e i s ther efor e or der ed su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 7, 2007 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, v. N o. 05- 3448 M AUR I CE I VOR Y, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No. 0 3
- CR- 2 0 1 6 7
- J W L) (D . K a n .) ( 396 F. Supp. 2d 1253)
ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , BA LD OCK , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. **
T he G overnm entchar ged D efe ndant M aur i ce I vor y w i t h, among other t hi ngs , bei ng a f elon in p o sses sion o f a h an d g u n in v io la ti o n o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g). T h e d istri ct co u rt i nit i al l yexcluded dam aging D N A evidence ob t ai ned from fi ng erpr i nts on t he han dg un as a
s anct i on fo rt he G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o t i m el yfurni s h s uch evi dence t o D efe ndant
. T he G o v e rn m e n t ap p e a led . V iew in g th e d istric t co u rt’s s a n c tio n a s o v e rlyh a rsh , w e re v e rse d in an unpubl i s hed opi ni on. See U ni t ed St at es v. I vory , 131 Fed. A ppx. 628, 2005 W L 1079881W hi l e thi s appea l w as pendi ng, w e or der ed D efe ndant ’ s r et ai ned couns el 1 “s t r i cken f

r om t hi s appea l ” due t o couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e an ope ni ng br i ef a ft er t w o deadl i ne ext ens i ons . W e furt herr efe r r ed hi m t o t he Tent h C i r cui t ’ s “att orney d isci p li n e p rog ram . ” N ew lyap p o inted co u n sel h ad n o p ri o r i n v o lvem en t i n this m att er. I n s epar at e Fed. R
. A pp. P. 28( j ) l ett er s , D efe ndantal s o s eeks t o chal l enge f or 2 t he fi r s tt i m e the l egal i t yof hi s s ent ence and the s ear ch under l y i ng di s coveryof the w eapon. U nfor tunat el y , i s s ues notr ai s ed i n an openi ng br i ef a r e dee m ed w ai ved. See U ni t ed St at es v. Pat t er s on, 472 F. 3d 767, 783 ( 10th C i r . 2006)
. I s s ues advert ed t o i n an openi ng br i ef i n a per funct or ym anner , unacc om pani ed bys om e ef for tatdevel oped ar gum ent at i on, ar e l i kew i s e dee m ed w ai ved. See H ar deman v. C i t yof A l buquer que, 377 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 2 2 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). 2 ( 10t h C i r . 2005)
. O n r emand, t he G overnm ent i ntr oduced t he D N A evi dence at t r i al t hr ough
an ex p ert w itn ess. N o ta b ly , D ef en d an t’ s retaine d co u n sel d id n o t seek to introd u ce ex p ert tes tim o n yre f

u tin g th e G o v e rn m e n t’s o w n D N A e x p e rt, alth o u g h su c h e x p e rt w a s a p p a re n tly avai l abl e and r eadyt o t es t i fy
. A j ur yconvi ct ed D efe ndantof the § 9 2 2 (g) ch arg e and the d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d h im to 2 6 2 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. In a m o ti o n f o r a n e w trial, D efe ndantcont i nued t o ar gue the D N A evi dence s houl d be excl uded as a di s coverys anct i on undert he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i ni t i al vi ew of the mat t er . B ound byourpr i ordeci s i on, the di s tr i ct
c ou r tde ni e d Def

e nd a nt ’ s mot i on i n a pu bl i s he d o pi ni on . Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. I vo r y , 39 6 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 5 3 ( D. Ka n . 2 0 0 5 )
. De f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d
. Ou rj u r i s d i c t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1291. Th e r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e wel l s t a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n a n d we n eed not d e tail th e m h e re . W e re c ite th e m o n lya s re lev a n t to o u r d isc u ss io n o n a p p e a l. 1 D efe ndant ’ s appel l at e ar gum ent cent er s on t he al l eged i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al
couns el
. W hi l e D ef

endant ’ s br i ef l i s t s t hr ee i s s ues forourcons i der at i on, t he ar gum ent 2
su rro u n d in g e a c h u lti m a telyre tu rn s to D e f e n d a n t’s c e n tra l p ro p o sitio n . A s s tate d inD efe ndant ’ s s econd a r gum ents quar el yaddr es s es the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of 3 couns el i s s ue. D efe ndant ’ s fi r s tar gum ents ugges t s w e s houl d r evi s i tourpr i orpanel deci s i on bas ed on J udge Seym our ’ s di s s ent . See I vory , 131 Fed. A ppx. at, 2005 W L 1079881, at**4- 8 ( Seym our , J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. O f cour s e, one pane l of thi s cour tcannot overrul e anotherpanel ’ s deci s i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 400 F. 3d 1242, 1256 ( 10t h C i r . 2005)
. M or eover , ourpr i oropi ni on cons t i tut es the l aw of the ca s e: W hen a cour tdeci des upon a rul e of l aw , t hatdeci s i on gener al l ys houl d cont i nue t o govern t he s ame i s s ues i n s ubs equents t ages i n t he s ame cas e. See R oth v. G r een, 466 F. 3d 1179, 1187 ( 10t h C i r . 2006)
. D efe ndant ’ s thi r d ar gum ents ugges t s tr i al couns el ’ s per form ance w as s o egr egi ous t hatw e s houl d empl oythe not i on of cumul at i ve err ort o gr ant Def e n d a n ta n e w t r i a l
. Se e Sh o r tv . Si r mon s , 4 7 2 F. 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 9 7 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. To a c c e p tt h a ta r g u me n t , we wo u l d h a v e t o a c c e p tDe f e n d a n t ’ s p r i n c i p a l a r g u me n t , wh i c h we l eave t o anotherday , t hati s , w hetherhi s tr i al couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve. 3 D efen dan t ’s op ening bri ef: “[T ]he r eal qu est i on befo re t his A pp el l at e C ou rt i s [D efen dan t ’s ] in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im u n d e r th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t[ .]” T o su p p o rt h is 3
c laim , D e f

e n d a n t f iled a m o tio n “ to re tain a D N A f o re n sic sc ien tist to p r o v id e in a f f id a v it form atm at t er s forw hi ch [the expe r t ] w oul d have be en compet entt o t esti fy att r i al [. ] ” A t w o- j udge mot i ons panel appr opr i at el ydeni ed the m ot i on gi ven ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es
v . G all o w ay , 5 6 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 9 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ) (en b an c). I n G al l ow ay , w e opi ned that“[i ] neff ect i ve ass i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s s houl d be br oughti n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs , noton di r ect appea l
. Such cl ai m s br ought on di r ectappea l
ar e 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. ” I d. at1240. T he r eas ons f o r o u r v iew w e re se lf

-e v id e n t: A fac tual r ecor d m us tbe deve l oped i n and addr es s ed by t he di s t r i ctcour ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance foreff

ect i ve re vi ew . E ven i f evi dence i s notnece s s ary , att he v e rylea st c o u n se l ac c u se d o f d e f icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e c a n e x p lain th e ir r eas oni ng and ac t i ons , and the di s t r i ct co ur tcan r enderi t s opi ni on on the me r i t s o f t h e c l a i m.4

A n opi ni on byt he di s t r i ctcourt i s a val uabl e ai d t o appel l at e re vi ew form any r eas ons , not t he l eas t of w hi ch i s t hat i n m os t cas es t he di s t r i ctcour ti s fami l i ar w ith th e p ro c e e d in g s a n d h a s o b se rv e d c o u n se l’s p e r f o rm a n c e , in c o n tex t, fi r s t hand. T hus , even i f t he re cor d appea r s t o need no furt herdevel opm ent , t he cl ai m s houl d s t i l l be pr es ent ed fi r s tt o t he di s t r i ctcou rti n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs ( w hi ch can be i ns t i tut ed w i t houtdel ay ) s o the r evi ew i ng cour tcan hav e t he b enef

i tof the dis t ri ctcou rt ’s view s. Id. (i n terna l fo o tno te om itted). I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour t , w hi ch w i t nes s ed the tr ial as it unfol ded, has had no op po rtun i t yw hats oev er t o d e v e l op a factual recor d o r pass on the subj ectof d efen se
couns el ’ s per form ance i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . C om par e U ni t ed St at es v. G al l egos , 108 F. 3d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 8 0 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( cons i der i ng an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m on di r ectappea l
w her e t he cl ai m w as adequa t el y devel oped and w el l document ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour tvi a tr i al and pos t - t r i al m ot i ons )
. O urr eas oni ng i n G al l ow ayapp l i es her e. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed t her ei n, w e dec l i ne t o addr es s t he m er i t s of D efe ndant ’ s i neff ect i ve ass i s t ance of tr i al couns el cl ai m on di r ectappea l
. D efe ndant ’ s appea l i s di s m i s s ed so t hat he m ay r ai s e hi s i neff ect i ve
as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , unencumber ed by pr ocedur al bar , i n t he di s tr i ctcour tpur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C
. § 2255. See G al l ow ay , 56 F. 3d at1242- 43.5

AP P E AL DI S M I S S E D. E n ter e d f o r th e C o u rt,

B obbyR
. B al dock C i r cui tJ udge