2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-7-2007 

# U SA v . O te ro P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5505

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ot e r o " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 609. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/609H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe * D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 05- 5505

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J UL I O OT E RO , A p p e llan t.

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m i nal N o. 96- cr - 00005- 03) ( D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo)

__________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 24, 2007 B efore: M cK E E and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, and A C K E R M A N , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge. *

( Fi l ed: A ugus t7, 2007)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on of thi s col l at er al att ack upon a 1 crim inal jud g m en t of

co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h is C o u rt has appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cr i m i nal appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2 2 5 3 (a). O n D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a ti m elyap p ea l w as f il ed fro m the D istri ct C o u rt ’s O ctob er 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 O rde r. 2 A C K E R M A N , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge. D ef en d an t Juli o O tero a p p ea ls an O ctob er 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 O rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt grant i ng the G ov ernm ent’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss O t ero’ s pr o s e m o tio n su b m itt e d p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2255. O t er o’ s appoi nt ed couns el has fi l ed a mot i on and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) and A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , s eeki ng t o w i thdr aw beca us e ther e ar e no non- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s on app eal . F or the reasons setforth b el ow , w e w i l l grantcou nsel ’s A nd ers m ot i on and a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 1

I. A s w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our anal y s i s . O n M ay27, 1998, J ul i o O t er o w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entbas ed upon a gui l typl ea t o char ges of oper at i ng a cont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 848( a) . N o di r ectappea l w as fi l ed; how ever , O t er o s ubs equent l yfi l ed a pro se m ot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he t i m i ng of O t er o’ s § 2255 m ot i on i s atthe ce nt erof the di s put e i n t hi s appea l due t o t he one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons es t abl i s hed bythe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) . O n J une 25, 2001,3

O t er o fi l ed a pr o s e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to v a c a te h is ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . H ow ever , O t er o ar gues thathe or i gi nal l yfi l ed a t i m el y§ 2255 m ot i on on M ay18, 1999, w hi ch w oul d have pr e- dat ed the M ay27, 1999 deadl i ne. T hi s i s notourfi r s tencount erw i th thi s m att er . O n M ay16, 2005, w e vac at ed en banc a February4, 2002 D i s tr i ctC our topi ni on w hi ch deni ed O t er o’ s i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B endol

ph , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 5 5 , 1 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e h e ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a d e rre d b yh o ld in g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n th is c laim w ith o u t a p p o in tin g c o u n s e l, id . at160, and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d su a sp o n te rai se the A E D PA one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons as l ong as i tgave O t er o not i ce a nd an o p p o rtu n ityto b e h ea rd a n d u n d ertoo k a p rejud ice a n aly sis co n sist en t w ith this C o u rt ’s o p in io n , i d. at16 9. T he G ov ernm ent had fail ed to ass ertthe st atute of l i m i t at i on s defen se d u ri n g th e f

ir s t e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tappoi nt ed couns el t o r epr es entO t er o, and hel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on O ct ober27, 2005 t o addr es s w hetherO t er o m ai l ed a t i m el y§ 2255 m o ti o n . In a n O ctob er 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 O rde r, the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e G o v ern m en t’ s m o tio n to d ism iss O ter o ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a n d iss u e d a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty (“C O A ”). O t ero app eal s t o u s. II. I n A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738, 745 ( 1967) , “the Supr eme C our tes t abl i s hed gui del i nes fora l aw y ers eeki ng t o w i thdr aw fr om a ca s e w hen the i ndi gentcr i m i nal4

defe ndanthe r epr es ent s w i s hes t o pur s ue fr i vol ous ar gum ent s on appea l . ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Y o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). A s a n a d v o c a te, c o u n se l m u st “ su p p o rt h is cl i ent ’ s appea l t o t he bes tof hi s abi l i ty . ” I d. H ow ever , i f couns el conduct s a thor ough exami nat i on of the r ecor d forpot ent i al gr ounds forappea l and “f i nds [a] cas e t o be w h o llyf riv o lo u s,” c o u n se l “s h o u ld so a d v ise th e c o u rt a n d re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w i thdr aw . ” I

d. A re q u e st f

o r p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w m u st b e a c c o m p a n ied b ya b rie f in s uppor t“r efe r r i ng t o anythi ng i n t he r ecor d thatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe appe al . ” I d. ( m er el y“[p] r es ent i ng w hatamount s t o a no- m er i tl ett erdevoi d of ana l y s i s w i l l not s uffi ce” ) . T hi s r eques tm us tal s o “expl ai n t o the courtw hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous , ” and d e m o n stra te th a t co u n se l h a s “ th o ro u g h lysc o u re d th e re c o rd in se a rc h o f a p p e a lab le i s s ues . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 , 7 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W her e couns el has fi l ed an A nd ers mo t i o n a n d s u b mi t t e d a n a p p r o p r i a t e b r i e f , we m u st de cide “w h ethe r co u n sel ad eq u atelyfu lfi ll ed the ru les req u ir em en ts” o f T h ir d C ir c u it L o c a l A p p e lla te R u le 1 0 9 .2 (a ). Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. N ext , w e mustdet erm i ne “w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues ” on a p p e a l. I d. ( ci t i ng Ma rv in , 211 F. 3d at780) . O urs crut i nyi s confi ned “t o thos e port i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed byan ade quat e A nd ers b rie f . . . [a n d ] th o se iss u e s ra ise d in A pp el l ant’ s pr o s e br i ef. ” Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at301.

III . A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatO t er o’ s couns el di l i gent l yexami ned the5

r ecor d forappea l abl e i s s ues . “W her e the A nd ers b rie f in iti a llya p p e a rs a d e q u a te o n its fac e, the pr opercour s e ‘ i s forthe appe l l at e courtt o be gui ded i n r evi ew i ng the r ecor d by the A nd ers br i ef i t s el f. ’ ” Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at301 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. W

agner , 103 F. 3d 551, 553 ( 7th C i r . 1996) ) . O t er o’ s couns el i dent i fi ed tw o pos s i bl e non- fr i vol ous i s s ues t o s uppor tO t er o’ s ar gum entthathe had s enta t i m el y§ 2255 m ot i on on M ay18, 1999. Fi r s t , O t er o pr oduced a “pr oof- of- m ai l i ng” documental l egedl ys i gned and s t amped bycas e managerR i char d M at l ack on M ay18, 1999. ( J . A . at241. ) Second, on J une 13, 2 0 0 0 , O ter o a p p a re n tlysu b m itt e d a re q u e st to p riso n o f f icia ls f o r lo st item s th a t re f

e rs to l egal paperw or k i ncl udi ng “my2255 m ot i on. ” (I d. at24 2. ) B oth of t hese do cum ents , c o u n s e l a s s e r t s , a r g u a b l y r e p r e s e n tc i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e th a tO t e r o f i l e d a t i m e l y § 2255 m ot i on. C ouns el al s o not es thatO t er o’ s or al t es t i m onys uppor t s hi s cont ent i on t hat h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w a s tim e lyf iled . A f ter id e n tify in g th e se p o ss ib le is su e s f o r a p p e a l, cou nsel setforth in hi s bri ef w hythese i ssues ar e fri vo l ou s. A ft er our ow n close exami nat i on of the r ecor d and ca s e l aw , both of w hi ch w er e gui ded bythe A nd ers br i ef, w e c o n clud e tha t cou n sel h as sa ti sfied the re q u ir em en ts of R u le 10 9 . 2 (a). W e nextr evi ew the r ecor d t o det erm i ne w hetherther e exi s tanynon- fr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l . Fi r s t , w e cons i derthe pr oof- of- m ai l i ng documentthatM at l ack al l egedl yver i fi ed w i th a per s onal i zed s t amp and si gned on M ay18, 1999 as evi dence t hat O t er o fi l ed a t i m el y§ 2255 m ot i on. ( J . A . at241. ) T he G overnm entcont ends thatthe cert i fi cat e of mai l i ng w as a for gerythathad bee n pr oduced bya copym achi ne ata l at er6

dat e. ( G ov’ tB r . at24. ) A tthe O ct ober27, 2005 evi dent i aryhear i ng, the G overnm ent p re se n ted tes tim o n yo f

b o th M a tlac k a n d C yn th ia C a li, a se c re tar yw h o w a s re sp o n sib le foror der i ng the cus t om s t amp t hatbear s the name of “R. M at l ack. ” These w i tnes s es t es t i fi ed thatM at l ack’ s per s onal i zed s t amp had notbeen or der ed unt i l s ever al m onths af ter M atl ac k all eg ed lystam p ed O tero’s p roo f-o f-m ail ing o n M ay1 8 , 1 9 9 9 . B ef o re M a tlac k re c e iv e d h is p e rso n a lize d sta m p , h e u se d a g e n e ric sta m p w h ich re q u ire d h im to pr i nthi s name i n a bl ank s pace . T he s t amp on O t er o’ s al l eged pr oof- of- m ai l i ng, how ever , w as notthe gene r i c s t amp, butr atherthe per s onal i zed s t amp. T he G overnm ent ar gued t o the D i s tr i ctC our tthati tw oul d have be en i m pos s i bl e forM at l ack t o have s t amped t hi s pr oof- of- m ai l i ng documentanyt i m e pr i ort o Sept ember2000, w hen M at l ack fi r s tr ece i ved the per s onal i zed s t amp. A ddi t i onal l y , M at l ack t es t i fi ed thathi s us ual pr act i ce i s t o handw r i t e the dat e next t o the s t amp, al though O t er o’ s pr oof- of- m ai l i ng l acke d anyhandw r i t t en dat e. M at l ack al s o t es t i fi ed thati nm at es have uns upervi s ed ac ces s t o phot ocopi er s . T hus , as the D i s tr i ct C our ti ndi cat ed, “i ti s notout s i de the r eal m of pos s i bi l i t i es thata documents t amped and sign ed b yR . M atl ac k co u ld b e p h o toco p ied o n to an o ther d o cu m en t. ” (J.A . at 7.) A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t O ter o ’s p ro o f o f m a ili n g w a s f

ra u d u len t. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so con si dered t he co m plet ed B ureau o f P ri sons “l osti t em s” form w hi ch O t er o gave t o a pr i s on offi ci al , M r . D enger . O n thi s form , dat ed J une 13, 2 0 0 0 , O ter o in d ica ted th a t h e h a d re c e n tlyb e e n re lea se d f ro m th e S p e c ial H o u sin g U n it7

( “ S HU” ) a n d n o t i c e d th a th e wa s mi s s i n g s e v e r a l p o s s e s s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g “ l e g a l wo r k ( my 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n , let ters t o the c o u rt , an d rese arc h m aterial in o n e f o lder).” (J. A . at 24 2 . ) T h is do cu m en t, O tero a sserts, is ev iden ce that h e h ad a § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n p ri o r t o Jan u ary 2000, w hen he w as m oved t o t he SH U uni tand s epar at ed fr om thes e i t ems. I n an uns i gned r es pons e t o t he l os ti t ems r eques t , O t er o w as t ol d t o “fi l e a t or t . ” ( J . A . at8, 2 4 2 . ) T h is r eq u est co u ld n o t hav e re fe rred to the Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n , O tero cont ends , beca us e thatm ot i on w as notpr epar ed unt i l overa y earl at er . O t er o as s ert s t hat th i s l o s ti t e m s r e q u e s ti s “ u n c o n tr o v e r t i b l e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ” th a th e s e n ta t i m e l y § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n o n M a y1 8 , 1 9 9 9 . (R e p ly B r. a t 3 .) T he D i s tr i ctC our t , how ever , not ed that“[i ] ti s undi s put ed thatfr om M ay18, 1999 unt i l J une 2001, O t er o di d notr ece i ve not i fi cat i on fr om the courtthati thad r ece i ved a § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n . M o reo v er, th ere is no ind icati o n that O tero inq u ir ed w ith the c o u rt r egar di ng the s t atus of the al l egedl yfi l ed 1999 § 2255 mot i on unt i l J une 2001. ” ( J . A . at 8. ) A ddi t i onal l y , the C our tnot ed thaton the § 2255 mot i on fi l ed byO t er o i n 2001, he “ans w er ed ‘ no’ t o ques t i on ei ght , w hi ch as ked: ‘ O therthan the di r ectappea l s l i s t ed above, have y ou pr evi ous l yfi l ed any otherm ot i ons , pet i t i ons , orappl i cat i ons conce rni ng thi s j udgm entof convi ct i on i n anycourt ?’” (I d. at8 ( emphasi s added) . ) B as ed on thi s , t he D i s tr i ctC our ts ugges t ed, even O t er o has i ndi cat ed thathe di d notfi l e a § 2255 mot i on p ri o r t o J u n e 2 0 0 1 . (I

d. ) A ft ercons i der i ng thes e and otheri s s ues pr es ent ed atthe e v id e n tiary he a rin g , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t su c h e v id e n c e “ o v e rw h e lm in g lysu p p o rts8

th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s p o s itio n ” th a t O te ro d id n o t f ile a M a y1 8 , 1 9 9 9 § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . F i nall y , w e con si der anyargum ents rai sed byO t ero i n h i s pr o s e b ri ef. O tero as s ert s thathe w as pr ej udi ced bythe G overnm ent ’ s l at e r ai s i ng of the l i m i t at i ons i s s ue beca us e Leonar d T ay l or , an i nm at e w ho al l egedl yhel ped O t er o pr epar e the purpor t ed tim e ly§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a n d a lleg e d lyw itn e ss e d O ter o m a il i t o n M a y1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , d ied in jail pri or t o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s evident i aryheari ng . In hi s pr o s e br i ef a nd dur i ng the h ea ri n g , O tero d id n o t i n d icate w h en T ay lor ac tuallyd ied. T h e G o v ern m en t, h o w ev er, a rg u e s th a t O ter o “ d o e s n o t ev e n a ttem p t to a lleg e o r p ro v e th a t L e o n a rd T a y lo r, h is es s ent i al w i tnes s , di ed betw een the t i m e of the governm ent ’ s or i gi nal r es pons e t o the s ect i on 2255 m ot i on on Sept ember17, 2001, and the t i m e of the evi dent i aryhear i ng on O ct ober27, 2005. ” ( G ov’ tB r . at25. ) I ns t ead, the G overnm entas s ert s thatT ay l ordi d not di e unt i l A pr i l 1, 2001, w hi ch w as pr i ort o the fi l i ng of O t er o’ s J une 25, 2001 § 2255 m oti on . “T hu s, the g ov ernm ent’ s fai l ure t o rai se the li m i t at i on s i ssue i n it s or igi nal r es pons e t o defe ndant ’ s s ect i on 2255 m ot i on, w hi ch i t s el f w as fi l ed af t erT ay l or ’ s death, di d notpr ej udi ce de fenda nt ’ s abi l i tyt o defe nd. ” (Id . a t 2 5 -2 6 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ).) In its O ct ober31, 2005 O r der , the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatO t er o s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce w i th r es pectt o anydel ayi n t he G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o as s ertthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e on Sept ember17, 2001. F o r th e re aso n s ide n ti fied b ythe G o v ern m en t, O tero’s m o st r ec en t argu m en t th at th e d elayin li ti g ati o n p rejud iced h im b ec au se o f T ay lor’s in ter v e n in g d e a th is s im ilarlyw ith o u t m e rit.9 I V. A fter co n d u cti n g o u r ow n ind ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd, w e a g ree w ith O tero’s c o u n s e l a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t th is c a s e p re s e n ts n o n o n -f ri v o lo u s is s u e s f

o r a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt a n d g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to wi th d r a w.