FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 50 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 2: 07 -cv -0 80 20 -LSC-P W G, 2: 05 -cr- 00 52 3- LSC-PWG-1 FRANK C. BAIRD, II, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ver su s UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Fed eral pri so ne r Fran k C . Bai rd , II, is servi ng a 1,1 90 -m on th sen te nc e aft er pl ead in g g ui lt y

to po ss es si on , pro du ct io n, an d tran sp orta ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hyan d t o t rav el in g i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce forth e p ur

po se of e ng ag in g i n i ll ic itsex ua l
co nduc t wi th a m in or . Pro ceed in g pr o s e an d c la im in g t ha t h is co un se l p ro vi de d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce i n v io la ti on of h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t, Ba irdap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, or
co rrec t h is sen te nc es . Spe ci fic al ly, Bai rdarg ue s t ha t co un se l fa il edto ad equa te ly
ex pl ai n aclaus e in Bai rd ’s pl ea ag reem en t b ecau se co un se l was un fam il iar with pa rts of the rel ev an t l aw. As a re su lt , Bai rdsays h e was no t i n apo si ti on to kn owi ng ly, in te ll ig en tl y , andvo lu nt ari ly accep t the pl ea ag reem en t i n wh ic h h e waiv edhi s ri gh t t o a skth e co urt t o i m po se a se nt en ce b el ow t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . Cou ns el ’s fai lu re, Bai rdass ert s, n oton ly m etth e st an da rdfor 1 de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. Bu t i t al so pre jud ic edhi m

by precl ud in g h im

fro m ch al le ng in g a n u nr eas on ab ly len gt hy andsev ere s en te nc e. Afte r a tho ro ug h
rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm Bai rd ’s con vi ct io ns . Ina 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g, we re vi ew a d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al
co nc lu si on s de no vo an d i ts factua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Rh od e v . Uni te d St at es , 58 3 F .3d12 89 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w cla im s fo r in effe ct iv e

Whil e the Cer

tificate of Appea lability

(“COA” ) re fer s to “waive rs” in the plura l, the only 1 waiver Ba ird discusses in his brief is the wa iver of the right to argue for a below- guideline total sentenc e under

§ 3553. There fore , even though Ba ird is a pro se litigant on appe al, the issue of any other wa iver in the plea

agree ment as to which c ounsel may have be en inef

fec tive has bee n abandone d. See United States v. Jernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003); see a lso Irwin v. Ha

wk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1994). 2as si st an ce o f co un se l de no vo as am ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct . Mic ha el v.

Cro sb y , 43 0 F .3d13 10 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Gen eral ly, whe n aco nv ic ti on is ba se d o n agu il ty ple a, th e d efen da ntwaiv es al l n on juri sd ic ti on al ch al le ng es , in cl ud in g t ho se of aco ns ti tu ti on al na tu re. W il so n v. Un it edSta te s, 9 62 F.2d99 6, 9 97 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Thi s ru le ap pl ie s eq ua ll y to di rectap pe al an d c ol la te ral att ack : a § 22 55 m ov an t wh o e nt ereda va li d g ui lt y pl ea wai ve s an y

pre -p le a in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s t ha t d o n otco nc ern hi s de ci si on to en te r th e p le a. See i d. Ho wev er, i ns of ar as th e m ov an t ch al le ng es th e kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry

na tu re o f th e p le a, as Bai rddo es he re, co ll at eral att ackis pe rm it te d. Se e id
. To m ak e a s uc ces sf

ul cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l, a d efen da nt
m us t m eeta two -p ro ng edtes t. He m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt ; an d (2 ) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce p reju di cedhi s d efen se . Stri ck la ndv. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4 (1 98 4) . Bot h p art s o f th e te stm us t b e m et . If a de fen da ntcan no t s at is fy th e p erfo rm an ce p ro ng , a co urt do es no t n eedto ad dr es s t he pre jud ic e p ro ng , andvi ce v ers a. Mi ch ael , 43 0 F .3dat 13 19
. Bai rdarg ue s t ha t h e sa ti sf ie s the de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce p ro ng be cau se hi s at to rn ey , Jo na th anW es so n, fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in th e fo ll owi ng claus e o f hi s pl ea ag reem en t: “ Sh ou ldth e d efen da ntaskth e co urt t o i m po se a se nt en ce b el ow 3th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge on an y

ba si s, i nc lu di ng bu t n otli m it edto fact or s i n 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3, t he go ve rn m en t wi ll co ns id er thi s ag reem en t n ul l an d v oi d.” The reco rdrev eal s t ha t Wess on ’s fai lu re t o e xp la in th is claus e p ro pe rly pri orto Bai rd ’s acce pt an ce o f th e p le a ag reem en t s te m m edfro m W es so n’s u nf

am il ia rit y wit h 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 , whi ch m an da te s t ha t a c ou rt n otim po se a se nt en ce “ gr eat er th anne ces sa ry ” to ach ie ve a nu m be r of im po rta ntpu rp os es , su ch as, in te r a li a , pr om ot in g re sp ectforth e la w, pro vi di ng jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , and pr ot ect in g t he publ ic fro m furth er cr im es by the de fen da nt . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). As a res ul t o f W es so n’s ex pl an at ory fai lu re, Bai rdass ert s, Ba ird

“un kn owi ng [ly] ” wai ve d h is rig htto askth e co urt fo r a s en te nc e b el ow wh atth e
se nt en ci ng gu id el in es advi se d, es se nt ia ll y gi vi ng bo thth e co urt an d t he go ve rn m en t fr ee re in to “ do as t he y wis h[ ed ] wit h” hi m , “ with n o p os si bi li ty of ob jecti on .” Fo r th is reas on , in si st s B ai rd , W es so n’s p erfo rm an ce was
co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t. An ev id en ti ary he ari ng was h el d t o a sc ert ai n t he va li di ty of Bai rd ’s § 2 25 5 cl ai m s. Th is ev id en ti ary he ari ng res ul te d i n t he di st ric t co urt fi nd in g t ha t, wh il e W es so n fa il edto ex pl ai n t he § 3 55 3 fa ct or s t o B ai rd , W es so n d idtel l Ba ird rep eat ed ly at ev ery st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in g t ha t h e wou ldli ke ly recei ve a li fe
se nt en ce i f he acce pt edth e p le a ag reem en t. Beyon d thi s, n ot hi ng pro hi bi te d Bai rd ’s sen te nc in g c ou rt f ro m im po si ng a be lo w-g ui de li ne sen te nc e o n i ts own . In 4ad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s con cl us io n b ot h

di sp ut in g B ai rd ’s cla im s re ga rd in g wh atW es so n t ol d h im ab ou t s en te nc in g a nd de si gn at in g B ai rd“ anast ou nd in gl y unbe li ev ab le witne ss .” W e ref rai n fr om de te rm in in g h ere wh ethe r W es so n’s fa il ur e to ex pl ai n t he la w un de rlyin g fe de ral sen te nc in g p ol ic y th or ou gh ly to Ba irdco ns ti tu te d d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce fa ll in g o ut si de th e “ wid e ran ge ” o f pr of es si on al ly com

pe te nt
as si st an ce. Payne v . All en , 53 9 F .3d12 97 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) . Determ in in g t ha t i ss ue is un ne ces sa ry be cau se , reg ard le ss of whe th er the re was de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce o n t he pa rt o f hi s co un se l, Ba irdha s fai le d t o s at is fy

th e se co ndpro ng of t he Str ic kl an d t es t. Tha t i s, h e h as no t s ho wn th atco un se l’s fa il ur e to expl ai n § 35 53 in th e co nt ex t o f th e p le a ag reem en t pr ejud ic edhi s d efen se . See Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 64
. Co ns eque nt ly, we ho ldth atBai rdis no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. Bai rdco nt en ds th atha d c ou ns el in fo rm edhi m of h is ab il it y

to ch al le ng e a pa rti cu la rly sev ere s en te nc e u si ng th e § 35 53 fact or s, h e wou ldha ve ne ve r en te red in to th e p le a ag reem en t tha t wai ve d h is rig htto askfora be lo w-g ui de li ne sen te nc e ba se d o n t ho se fact or s. Fo r th is reas on , Bai rdcla im s, co un se l’s fa il ur e to ex pl ai n th e § 35 53 fact or s i n the co nt ex t o f th e p le a ag reem en t caus edhi m to su ffer pr ejud ic e. Howev er, the di st ric t co urt, wh os e fac tu al fin di ng s we a do ptinth e ab se nc e 5of

cle ar erro r, se e Uni te d S ta te s v . McPh ee, 3 36 F.3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (“ Und er the cle arl y

erro ne ou s s ta nd ard , we m us t af firm th e d is tri ctco urt u nl es s
rev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdlea ve s u s wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti onth ata
m is ta ke ha s b een co m

m it te d.” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ), de te rm in edth atth e factua l p rem is es of thi s ar gu m en t wer e in va li d. Fi rs t, i t fo un d t ha t, co nt rary to Bai rd ’s ass ert io ns , Bai rdun de rs to odth at“ he was a lm os t ce rta in to rece iv e a l ife
se nt en ce” wh enhe pl ead edgu il ty. Seco nd , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t, wi th bo th
a co nv ic ti on an d l ife sen te nc e li ke ly, Bai rd ’s pri m ary co nc ern in ne go ti at in g apl ea ag reem en t was li m it in g t he go ve rn m en t’s ab il it y to for fei t h is pro pe rty. T hi s ai m
was ach ie ve d t hr ou gh th e fi na l p le a ag reem en t, wh ic h l eftBai rd ’s ho m e an d fa rm
un to uc he d. Acce pt in g t he se factua l fi nd in gs , parti cu la rly tha t Ba ird ’s dec is io n t o pl eadgu il ty w as dri ve n b y a de si re t o p ro te cthi s h om e an d fa rm an d was
un de rta ke n wi thth e kno wled ge th ata li fe s en te nc e was li ke ly, we co nc lu de th at th ere i s n o re as on ab le pro babi li ty tha t co un se l’s p ro vi si onof f ul l an d c orrect in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g § 35 53 wou ldha ve alt eredBai rd ’s dec is io n t o p le adgu il ty. Und er the cir cu m st an ces , Bai rdha d am pl e m ot iv at io n t o a ccep t the pl ea an d s av e hi s p ro pe rty. Andby fail in g t o s ho w a “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor
co un se l’s erro rs , he wo ul d n othave pl ead edgu il ty andwou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o t ria l,” Go rd on v. Un it edSta te s, 5 18 F.3d12 91 , 12 97 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) , we ho ldth atBai rdha s fa il edto m eethi s b ur de n u nd er 6th e p reju di ce p ro ng of t he Str ic kl an d t es t.

Thi s co nc lu si on dra ws fu rth er s up po rt f ro m th e swe ep in g l an gu ag e o f th e waiv er p ro vi si onin th e p le a ag reem en t atis su e h ere. Sp eci fic al ly, th atpro vi si on pr ecl ud es Bai rdfro m

“ as k[ in g] th e co urt t o i m po se a se nt en ce b el ow the advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge on an

y b as is , in cl ud in g b utno t l im it edto fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 .” (Em

ph as is ad de d.) Whi le he m ay no t h av e u nd ers to od§ 3 55 3, Ba irddo es
no t d is pu te th athe kn ew th athe was wai vi ng hi s ri gh t t o a rg ue fora be lo wgu id el in e se nt en ce “ onan y ba si s” when he en te redth e p le a. Thu s, the pl ai n la ng ua ge of t hi s wai ve r bu tt res se s o urco nc lu si on th ata sp eci fic expl an at io n reg ard in g t he § 3 55 3 fa ct or s wo ul d n othave m ad e a d iff eren ce h ere. Bec au se he was n otpre

jud ic edby any

de fic ie nc ie s i n h is rep res en ta ti on , we ho ldth atBai rden te redhi s p le a o f gu il ty kno win gl y an d v ol un taril y . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7