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 erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r6,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E 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. LUC I AN O LO PEZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 4267 ( D . C . N os . 2: 05- C V - 537- D A K and 2 : 9 9 - CR - 4 4 3 - DAK) ( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. Lu c i a n o Lo p e z c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f h i s 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 25 5 m oti on . W e grant ed a ce rt i fi cat e of a pp eal abil i tyon t he fo l l ow i ng i ssues: (1 ) th e a p p lica b ili tyo f § 2 2 5 5 (4 ); (2 ) th e d ili g e n c e w ith w h ich M r. L o p e z sh o u ld have e ndeavor ed t o fi nd outt hathi s form ercouns el had notfi l ed a not i ce of appea l ; ( 3) t he appl i cabi l i t yof equi t abl e t ol l i ng; and ( 4) t he r el evanc e of R oe v.-2-

F l or es - O r t ega , 5 2 8 U. S . 4 7 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. §§ 12 91 and 22 53 (a) . W e revers e and rem and for further proceedings. M r . L opez w as char ged i n a ni ne- counts uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw i th var i ous fi r earm s offe ns es . H e pl eade d gui l tyt o tw o count s of bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) and w as s ent ence d on February18, 2004. Si xt een mont hs l at er , on J une 27, 2005, M r . L opez f i l ed a m ot i on s eeki ng l eave t o fi l e a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255. I n thatm ot i on M r. L o p e z c o n ten d e d th a t h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w e re v io late d w h e n h is at t or neyfai l ed t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l aft erM r . L opez i ns truct ed hi m t o do s o. T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed M r. L op ez’s m oti on as unti m el y . T he d i stri ctcou rtal so “dec l i ne[d] t o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o equi t abl yt ol l the one- y ears t atut e of lim ita tio n s .” R ., D o c . 3 a t 3 . “[W ] e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s l egal rul i ngs on a § 2255 mot i on de novo and i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl earerr or . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P ear ce , 146 F. 3d 771, 774 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . I n hi s § 2255 m ot i on M r . L opez c l ai m ed that “[i ]m m ediat el yfoll ow i ng sent encing, ” he inform ed h i s coun sel , M ark S. K ou ri s, t hathe w ant ed t o appea l hi s s ent ence , and thathe and M r . K our i s agr eed that th e re w e re g ro u n d s fo r a n a p p e a l. R ., D oc. 1 at2. B as ed on thatdi s cus s i on, M r . L opez r el i ed on hi s couns el t o fi l e the not i ce of appea l . M r . L opez s t at ed that a f ter h e w a s tra n sfe rre d o u t o f sta te c u sto d yto fe d e ra l p riso n , h e a ttem p ted to c o n t a c th i s a t t o r n e yb yt e l e p h o n e a n d l e t t e r , b u tn e v e rr e c e i v e d a r e s p o n s e . He-3-

s entt w o l et t er s vi a ce r t i fi ed mai l i n A pr i l and J une 2005 and a t t ache d the s i gnatur e r ece i pt s fort hos e l et t er s t o hi s m ot i on. M r . L opez c ont ended thathe r ece i ved no r es pons e fr om hi s at t or neyand thatas s oon as he l earned aboutthe o n e -y e a r fili n g lim itatio n fo r § 2 2 5 5 re lief f ro m a fe llo w in m a te, h e filed h is m o tio n . In re lev a n t p a rt, § 2 2 5 5 re q u ire s a m o tio n se e k in g re lief to b e filed w ith in one- y earof the l at erof the fol l ow i ng: (1 ) th e d a te o n w h ich th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n b e c o m e s fin a l;

. . . . ( 4 ) t h e d a t e o n wh i c h t h e fa c t s s u p p o r t i n g th e c l a i m o rc l a i ms pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence . 28 U . S. C . § 2255. In deny i ng M r. L op ez’s m oti on , the d i stri ctcou rtrul ed thatbecau se M r . L opez’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on February28, 2004, hi s § 2255 m ot i on filed m o re th a n o n e y e a r la ter w a s u n tim e ly . In its re sp o n se b rie f filed w ith th is cour t , t he governm entconce des thatthe di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o cons i derthe app l i cabil i t yof § 22 55 (4) . A s the g ov ernm ent expl ai ns: I nas m uch as L opez c ont ends thathe att empt ed t o cont acthi s att orney se v e ra l ti m e s b ytele p h o n e a n d m a il co n c e rn in g th e sta tu s o f h is appea l butr ece i ved no r es pons e, § 2255( 4) m ayappl yt o the pr es ent c a se a n d L o p e z sh o u ld b e g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ityto e sta b lish th e d a te on w hi ch he s houl d have di s cover ed, thr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence , t hatno appea l w as fi l ed. I f the di s tr i ctcour tfi nds that-4-

L opez f i l ed hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e w i thi n one y earof thatdat e, the m o tio n is tim e ly u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 (4 ). A pl ee. B r . at7. T h e d ate o n w h ich M r. L o p ez sh o u ld h av e d isco v ere d h is at torn ey ’s fa il u re to file a n a p p e a l is a fa c t- s p e c ific in q u ir y . S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi ms , 225 F. 3d 1 8 6 , 1 9 0 -9 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W e a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t th e re c o rd is in a d e q u a te to d e ter m in e a t w h a t p o in t M r. L o p e z sh o u ld h a v e m a d e th is d isc o v e ry . W e th e re fo re a g re e th a t re m a n d fo r f u rth e r fa c t-fin d in g o n th is iss u e is re q u ir e d . See § 2 25 5 (“U nles s the m oti on and the fil es and records of the case con cl usi velyshow t hat the p ri soner i s ent i t l ed to no rel i ef, the co urtshal l cause not i ce ther eof t o be s erved upon the U ni t ed St at es att orney , gr anta pr om pt hear i ng t her eon, det erm i ne the i s s ues and make fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw w i t h r es pectt her et o. ”) . B eca us e w e ar e r emandi ng t o the di s tr i ctcourtfor fur t herfac t - fi ndi ng, w e do notneed t o r eac h the i s s ue of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng orthe appl i cabi l i t yof

R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 5 2 8 U .S . 4 7 0 , 4 7 7 (2 0 0 0 ). T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is R E V E R S E D a n d th e c a se is R E M A N D E D for further proceedings. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge