## F I LED United State s C ourt o f Appe als Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t30,2006 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, v. M I CH AE L DAL E CH RI S T I AN, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 7108 ( E . D . O kl ahoma) ( D. Ct . No . CI V- 0 5 - 1 2 1 - WH)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY

AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui t Judg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d not m at er i al l yas s i s t t he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. M i chae l D al e C hr i s t i an, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng in fo rm a p a u p e ris ( ifp ) , fi l ed a pro se m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcor r ects ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 all eg ing ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. T h e d ist ri ct co u rt ap p o inted co u n sel an d referred the m att er to a m ag ist rate jud g e fo r an ev iden ti ary hear i ng and r epor t and r ecomm endat i on. A ft erconduct i ng an evi dent i ar yhear i ng,C hri s ti an’ s bri ef e rroneous lys tates : “A n appea lfroma finalj udgm entin a 1 § 2 2 5 5 c a s e is am atte r o f ri g ht.” (A p p e llant’ s B r. at 1 .) B e c au s e th e d is tric t c o urtn e v e r ru le do nth e C O A is s u e , w e d e e mit d e n ie d . See 2 U ni ted Statesv. Kennedy , 225 F. 3d 1187, 1193 n. 3 ( 10th C ir . 2000) ( “U nderour E m ergencyG eneralO rderof O ctober1, 1996, w e dee mthe di s tri ctcourt ’ s fai lur e to i s s ue a [ C O A ] w ith in thirtyd ay s af ter fil ing the n o ti ce o f ap p ea l as a d en ialo f th e c erti ficate. ”).

- 2- the m ag ist rate rec o m m en d ed C h ri sti an ’s m o ti o n b e d en ied. T h e d ist ri ct co u rt agr eed. C h ri s tia n th e n file d , in ter a lia , a pro se r eques t for a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y( C O A ) and t o pr ocee d ifp on appea l . I n t he meant i m e, hi s appoi nt ed couns el fi l ed a not i ce of appea l and r eques t t o pr ocee d ifp on appea l . B eca us e he w as r epresent ed b ycou nsel , t he d i st ri ct cou rtden i ed C hri st i an’s pro se m oti on s. H ow ever , i t gr ant ed t he mot i on fi l ed bycouns el t o pr ocee d ifp o n a p p e a l. Subse quent l y , C hr i s t i an, s t i l l r epr es ent ed bycouns el , and t he gover nm ent fi l ed br i efs w i t h t hi s C our t . H ow ever , befor e C hr i s t i an may appea l t he deni al of h i s § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n , we mu s t i s s u e a CO A. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ); F ED . 1 R . A PP . P. 22( b) ( 1) . T her efor e, w e cons t r ue C hr i s t i an’ s br i ef a s an appl i cat i on for a C O A . B eca us e w e conc l ude C hr i s t i an has fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al

2 s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght , ” s ee 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) , we d e n yh is re q u e s t fo r C O A a n d d is m is s th e a p p lic a tio n . I . B ackgr ound O n A u g u st 1 , 2 0 0 3 , C h ristia n w a s in d icte d fo r (1 ) c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te m et hamphet ami ne and mar ij uana i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 ( C ount I ) , ( 2)Inth e p leaa g re e m e nt, th e p arties a g re e d“ th at th e m o st re a d ilyp ro v ab le qu antity 3 of drugs involved in the countal l eged and as r el evantconductfromthe overal lcons piracy i s [1] pound of m ethamphet ami ne and [ 136] pounds of m ari j uana. ” ( Pl ea A gr eementat 1 2 . )

- 3- p o s s e s s i o n o f

me t h a mp h e t a mi n e wi t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( vi i i ) ( C ount I I ) and ( 3) pos s es s i on of m ar ij uana w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( vi i i ) ( C ount I I I ) . T he cour t appoi nt ed M i chae l M cG ui r e t o r epr es enthi m . O n J anuar y9, 2004, C h ristia n p led g u ilt yto C o u n t II. In th e p lea a g re e m e n t, he w a iv e d h is a p p e llate an d p o st- co n v ict ion ri g h ts bu t r ese rve d the righ t t o ap p ea l any u p w ard d ep arture or enhanc ement t o hi s s ent ence . Pr i or t o s ent enci ng, t he pr obat i on depar t m entpr epar ed a pr es ent ence i nv est i gati on report(PS R ). B ased up on t he st i pu l at ed d rug qu anti t i es, 3 C hr i s t i an’ s bas e offens e l evel w as 30. U SSG §2D 1. 1( a) ( 3) , ( c) ( 5) . T he pr obat i on offi c e r r e c omm e nd e d a t w o- l e ve l e nh a nc e mentfo r po s s e s s i on of a fi r e a r m ( U SSG §2 D 1. 1( b) ) , a t hr e e - l e ve l up w a r d a dj us t mentfo r hi s r ol e i n t he offe ns e ( U SSG §3B 1. 1( b) ) and a t hr ee- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entfor acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y( U SSG §3E 1. 1) , r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 32. W i t h a c rim in a l h isto ry c a teg o ry o f IV , the g u id e lin e ra n g e o f im p riso n m e n t w a s 1 6 8 to 21 0 m on t hs. C hri st i an o bject ed to t he fir earm and rol e i n the offen se enhanc ement s . A t s ent enci ng, how ever , he w i t hdr ew t hes e obj ect i ons i n excha nge for t he gover nm entagr eei ng t o a r educt i on of t he r ol e i n t he offens e adj us t m ent- 4-

fr om t hr ee l evel s t o t w o. T he cour t acc ept ed t hi s s t i pul at i on, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a new offe ns e l evel of 31 and a gui del i ne r ange of 151 t o 188 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he cour t s ent ence d C hr i s t i an t o 188 m ont hs . J udgm entw as e n ter e d o n M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . C h ristia n d id n o t file a d ire c t ap p e a l. O n M ar ch 18, 2005, C hr i s t i an fi l ed a pro se m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de or cor r ects ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. H e al l eged hi s t r i al couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o ( 1) appea l t he fi r ear m enhanc ement , ( 2) fi l e a di r ect a p p e a l d e sp ite b e in g a sk e d to d o so , an d (3 ) c o n su lt w ith h im a b o u t an a p p e a l. T he gover nm entr es ponded, ar gui ng C hr i s t i an’ s § 2255 m ot i on s houl d be s um m ar i l ydi s m i s s ed bec aus e he w ai ved hi s r i ght t o fi l e a § 2255 mot i on i n t he pl ea a gr eement . I n t he al t er nat i ve, i t as s er t ed C hr i s t i an’ s t r i al couns el w as not i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e an a ppeal beca us e al l pot ent i al appel l at e i s s ues had been w ai ved pr i or t o s ent enci ng ( i . e. , b yh is g u ilt yp lea a n d th e w ith d ra w a l o f h is obj ect i ons t o t he PSR ) . T he di s t r i ctcour t concl uded an e vi dent i ar yhear i ng w as n e c e ss a ry to d e ter m in e w h e th e r C h ristia n re q u e ste d h is a tto rn e yto file a n a p p e a l. T he cour t appoi nt ed couns el t o r epr es entC hr i s t i an and r efe r r ed t he mat t ert o a m a g is tr a te ju d g e . See R ul e 8( b) , ( c) of t he R ul es G over ni ng Sect i on 2255 P roceedings for t he U nit ed S t at es D i st ri ct C ou rt s. O n J une 14, 2005, t he magi s t r at e j udge conduc t ed an e vi dent i ar yhear i ng. O n A ugus t 29, 2005, t he magi s t r at e i s s ued a r epor t and r ecomm endat i on, r ecomm endi ng deni al of C hr i s t i an’ s § 2255 m ot i on. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , t heT he magi s trate al s o cons trued C hri s ti an’ s § 2255 m oti on as al l eging couns elw as 4 ineff ective forfai l ing to adequat elyexpl ain ( 1) the pl ea a gr eement , in parti cul ar , the w aiverof appe alprovi s i on, and ( 2) the cons equenc es of w ithdraw ing hi s obj ecti ons to the s entencing enhanc ement s on hi s ri ghtto appea lthos e enhancement s . A s to the form er c l a im , th e m a g i s trat e f

o un ditw a s “ f

l atly c o ntra d i c t e dn o to n ly b y [ M c G u ir e ’ s ] t e s tim o ny, b ut a ls o b ya lm o s t e v e ryth in g e ls e ap p e ari n g o f re c o rd , e. g. , the trans criptof the [c hange o f p leah e arin g ], w h e re inb o th[ M c G u ire ] an dth e U S A d isc u ss e dth e w a iv e r o f ap p e a l in [Chr is tian’spres ence

] .” (R . V o l. I, D o c . 9 at 5 .) T hu s, th e m a g istrate r e c o m m e n d e dit be deni ed. I tal s o r ecomm ended the l att ercl aimbe deni ed bec aus e ( 1) itw as w ithin the s cope of C hri s ti an’ s w aiverof hi s ri ghtto col l ateral lyattack hi s s entenceand ( 2) itw as contradi cted byM cG uir e’ s t es tim onyatthe evi denti aryhearing. C hri s ti an, w ho w as r epres ented bycouns el , di d notobj ectto thes e recomm endati ons . “Thi s courthas a d o p tedaf

irmw a iv e r ru le un d e r w h ichap artyw h o f a ils to m ak e atim e lyo b jec tio nto th e m a g istrate ju d g e ’s f in d in g s an dre c o m m e n d atio n s w a iv e s ap p e llate re v iew o f b o th fac tualand l egalques ti ons . ” See M orales -Fernandezv. I

. N . S. , 4 1 8 F .3 d1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2005) . “Thi s rul e does notapply , how ever , w hen ( 1) a pro sel iti ganthas notbeen inform ed of the tim e peri od forobj ecting and the cons equenc es of fa i l ing to obj ect , or w hen ( 2) the int eres t s of j us ti ce requir e revi ew . ” I d. ( quotati ons om itt ed) . T he s econd excepti on has been e quated, atl eas tin cas es involving pro sel iti gant s , w ith pl ain error re v ie w . I

d. at 1 1 2 2 . N e ith e r e x c e p tio nw arrants d e p arture f ro mth e f irmw a iv e r ru le in th is c a s e . Inanye v e nt, w e c o n c lu d e th e m a g is tr ate p ro p e rlyre je c te dth e s e c la im s . C o n s e qu e ntly, to th e e x te nt C hri s tians e e k s aC O A o nth e s e is s u e s , w e d e nyit.

- 5- m agi s t r at e conc l uded C hr i s t i an had notw ai ved hi s r i ght t o br i ng a § 2255 mot i on chal l engi ng hi s couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a di r ectappea l . N ever t hel es s , t he m agi s t r at e det er m i ned M cG ui r e w as not i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a di r ect appea l beca us e he w as neveras ked t o fi l e s uch appe al . C hr i s t i an obj ect ed t o t he r epor t and r ecomm endat i on, ar gui ng t he magi s t r at e er r ed i n fi ndi ng M cG ui r e w as neveras ked t o fi l e an a ppeal . O n Sept ember 15, 2005, t he di s t r i ctcour t adopt ed t he magi s t r at e’ s r ecomm endat i on and deni ed r el i ef. 4 I I . D i s cus s i on A C O A is a ju ri s d ic tio n a l p re -r e q u is ite to o u r r e v ie w . M i l l er - E lv.- 6-

C o c kre ll, 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l i s s ue a CO A onl yi f C hr i s t i an makes a “ s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T o m a k e th is s h o w in g , h e m u st e sta b lish th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w het her. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [byt he di s t r i ct cour t ] i n a di ffe r entm anneror t hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des er ve encour agement t o pr ocee d fur t her . ” S la c kv . Mc D a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ns ofaras t he di s t r i ctcour t di s m i s s ed hi s § 2255 m ot i on on p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, C h ristia n m u st d e m o n stra te b o th th a t “ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fi nd i t debat abl e w het hert he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of t he deni al of a cons t i t ut i onal r i ght and t hatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i t debat abl e w het hert he di s t r i ctcour t w as cor r ecti n i t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng. ” Id . In h is C O A a p p lica tio n , C h ristia n a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt c lea rlye rre d in fin d in g h e d id n o t re q u e st a n a p p e a l b e c a u se th is fin d in g is in d ire c t co n flict w ith t he evi dence . B eca us e he r eques t ed an a ppeal and M cG ui r e fa i l ed t o fi l e one, C h ristia n c o n ten d s h e w a s d e n ied e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l an d is e n tit led to r el i ef. A n i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m r equi r es a s how i ng t hat( 1) “couns el ’ s per for m ance w as defi ci ent ” and ( 2) “t he def i ci entper for m ance pr ej udi ced t he defens e. ” St r i ckl and v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ).

“ [ A ] d e fe n d a n t w h o e x p l i c i t l y t e l l s h i s a t t o r n e y notto file a n a p p e a l p lain ly cannotl at ercompl ai n t hat , byfol l ow i ng hi s i ns t r uct i ons , hi s couns el per for m ed- 7-

defi ci ent l y . ” R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U . S. 470, 477 ( 2000) . O n t he ot herhand, “a l aw y erw ho di s r egar ds s peci fi c i ns t r uct i ons fr om t he defendantt o fi l e a not i ce of appe al act s i n a manner t hati s pr ofes s i onal l yunr eas onabl e. ” Id. I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , t he defendanti s ent i t l ed t o a new appea l , r egar dl es s of w het her s u c h a p p e a l w o u ld h a v e m e ri t. Un itedS ta tes v . G a rr e tt , 402 F. 3d 1262, 1265 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). E ven w hen a de fenda nt nei t heri ns t r uct s couns el t o fi l e an a ppeal nor r eques t s t hatan appe al not be t aken, couns el m aybe s t i l l be i neffect i ve forfai l i ng to file a n a p p e a l if

h e d id n o t c o n s u lt w ith th e d e fe n d a n t a b o u t a n a p p e a l, i . e. , if he fa i l ed t o “advi s [e] t he defendantaboutt he adva nt ages and di s advant ages of takin g an ap p ea l” an d “m ak [e ] a rea so n ab le effo rt to d isco v er the d efen d an t’ s w i s hes . ” F l or es - O r t ega , 5 2 8 U .S . at 4 7 8 . “[ C ]o u n se l h a s a c o n stitu tio n a lly i m pos ed dut yt o cons ul t w i t h t he defendantaboutan appe al w hen t her e i s r eas on t o t hi nk ei t her( 1) t hata r at i onal defe ndantw oul d w antt o appea l ( for exampl e, beca us e t her e ar e nonfr i vol ous gr ounds for appea l ) , or ( 2) t hatt hi s par t i cul ar d e fe n d a n t re a so n a b lyd e m o n stra ted to c o u n se l th a t h e w a s in ter e ste d in appea l i ng. ” Id. at480. I n m aki ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, r el evantfac t or s i ncl ude “w het hert he convi ct i on fol l ow s a t r i al or gui l t ypl ea” ( “bec aus e a gui l t ypl ea r educe s t he s cope of

pot ent i al l yappea l abl e i s s ues and . . . m ayi ndi cat e t hatt he defe ndants eeks an end t o j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ”) , “w het hert he defendantr ece i ved th e se n ten c e b a rg a in e d fo r a s p a rt o f th e p lea ” a n d “ w h e th e r th e p lea e x p re ss ly- 8-

r es er ved orw ai ved s om e oral l appea l r i ght s . ” Id. I n t hi s cas e, t he magi s t r at e found ne i t herC hr i s t i an norhi s s i s t err eques t ed M c G u ir e to file a n a p p e a l. T h is fin d in g is n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Uni t ed St at es v. Mora , 293 F. 3d 1213, 1216 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “I n r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a § 2255 mo t i o n , we r e v i e w fo r c l e a r e r r o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s fa c t u a l fi n d i n g s , a n d we r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo. ”) . A t t he evi dent i ar yhear i ng, C hr i s t i an’ s s i s t er t es t i fi ed C hr i s t i an ca l l ed heraft erhi s s ent enci ng hear i ng i nfor m i ng herhe w ant ed t o t al k t o M cG ui r e. She cal l ed M cG ui r e i nfor m i ng hi m C hr i s t i an w i s hed t o s peak w i t h hi m abouthi s cas e. She nevert es t i fi ed s he i nfor m ed M cG ui r e t hatC hr i s t i an w i s hed t o fi l e an a ppeal . T he r emai ni ng t es t i m onyw as confl i ct i ng, w i t h C hr i s t i an sta tin g h e in fo rm e d M c G u ire h e w ish e d to a p p e a l th e e n h a n c e m e n ts to h is se n ten c e a n d M c G u ire d e n y in g e v e r b e in g a sk e d to file a n a p p e a l. T h e m a g istra te reso lved this co n fli ct ag ains t C h ri sti an , ex p resslyfin d ing M cG u ir e to b e m o re c re d ib le . T h is fin d in g is e n title d to d e fe re n c e . See Nat ’ lR ef i ni ng C o. v. Wagner , 169 F. 2d 43, 45 ( 10t h C i r . 1948) ( cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es and w ei ght t o be gi ven t hei r t es t i m onyar e ques t i ons for t he t r i al cour t ; a t r i al j udge obs er ves t he w i t nes s es w hi l e t es t i fy i ng and i s i n a bet t erpos i t i on t o j udge t hei r cr edi bi l i t yt han i s t hi s cour t ) . I t i s al s o s uppor t ed byobj ect i ve fa ct or s , w hi ch t he magi s t r at e not ed i n hi s r epor t and r ecomm endat i on, i ncl udi ng ( 1) C hr i s t i an’ s faul t yr ecol l ect i on of hi s pl ea a gr eement and s ent enci ng ( 2) hi s t es t i m onyt hathe di d not r emem ber par t s of t hi s s ent enci ng and ( 3) hi s admi s s i on t hats om e of t he i nfor m at i on he- 9-

provided u nd er oat h at t he ch ang e of p l ea hea ri ng w as untruthful . B ecause C h ristia n n e v e r re q u e ste d a n a p p e a l, M c G u ire w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to file a n a p p e a l. W i t h r egar d t o t he dut yt o cons ul t , t her e i s no evi dence M cG ui r e cons ul t ed w ith C h ristia n a b o u t an a p p e a l. N e v e rth e les s, a s th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d , this fa ilu re to c o n su lt w a s n o t u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e re w a s n o d u tyto c o n su lt i n t hi s cas e. C hr i s t i an’ s convi ct i on fol l ow ed a gui l t ypl ea a nd he r ece i ved t he bar gai ned fors ent ence . A l t hough he r es er ved t he r i ght t o appea l t he enhanc ement s t o hi s s ent ence , he effec t i vel yw ai ved t hatr es er vat i on by w i t hdr aw i ng hi s obj ect i ons t o t hos e enha ncement s i n excha nge fora “gua r ant eed” l ow ers ent ence . T hes e fa ct s demonst r at e M cG ui r e had no r eas on t o bel i eve a r at i onal defe ndantw oul d w antt o appea l and more s peci fi cal l yt hatC hr i s t i an w as in ter e ste d in a p p e a lin g h is s e n ten c e . B e c a u se M c G u ire h a d n o d u tyto c o n su lt w i t h C hr i s t i an aboutan appe al , he w as noti neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o do s o. W e D E N Y C hr i s t i an’ s r eques t for a C O A and D I SM I SS t he appl i cat i on. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge