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 ti n the det erm i nat i on o f 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 is c a se is t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### Ju ly25,2007 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 ,

R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e , v. AB EL SAENZ,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 1071 ( D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado) ( D . C . N os . 99- C R - 317- R PM and 0 3 - C V - 9 8 0 - R P M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A bel Saenz, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s t he di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . B eca us e w e fi nd t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng M r . Saenz an evi dent i aryhear i ng, w e r ever s e and r emand.-2- BA CKGROUND M r. S a e n z p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te o r p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 5 0 0 o r m o re g ra m s o f c o c a in e . T h e p lea a g re e m e n t in d ica ted th a t, undera t ent at i ve comput at i on of M r . Saenz’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , hi s G ui del i nes s ent ence w oul d be betw een 46 a nd 115 m onths i ncar cer at i on, and thatt he ca r eer c ri m in a l o ffe n d e r a dju s tm e n t d id n o t a p p ly. See U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 4B 1. 1 ( 2002) . T he agr eements peci fi ed, how ever , t hati tw as not condi t i oned on a pa r t i cul arcr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryand thatt he U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi ce w oul d fur t heri nves t i gat e thi s i s s ue. U pon compl et i on of i t s i nves t i gat i on, t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce di s cover ed an a ddi t i onal fel onydrug convi ct i on, w hi ch tr igg ere d the c are er-o ffen d er e n h an ce m en t and q u ali fied M r. S ae n z fo r a s ent enci ng r ange of

188 t o 235 m onths i ncar cer at i on. A ft era s er i es of hea r i ngs and cont i nuance s , dur i ng w hi ch M r . Saenz re q u e ste d a n d re c e iv e d n e w c o u n se l, M r. S a e n z m o v e d to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on and s ent ence d M r . Saenz t o 159 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm t hati ncl uded a dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al a s s is ta n c e . O n d ire c t ap p e a l, th is C o u rt a ffirm e d th e d e n ial o f M r. S a e n z ’s r e q u e st to w ith d ra w h is p le a . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Saenz , 1 0 F . A p p ’x . 7 0 1 , 7 0 7

– 0 8 (1 0 th Ci r . M a y8 , 2 0 0 1 ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . M r . S a e n z th e n fi l e d a mo t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 t o v a c a t e h i s s e n t e n c e . H e a l l e g e d t h a th i s g u i l ty p l e a w a s i n v o l u n t a ry,-3-

t hathi s at t or neyw as i neffect i ve, and thata pr i ors t at e convi ct i on thatfac t or ed i nt o hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e s houl d be s etas i de. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the m ot i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , fi ndi ng thatM r . Saenz mer el yr epea t ed cl ai m s he h a d a lr e a d yra is e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. War ner , 23 F. 3d 287, 2 9 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). M r . Saenz a ppeal ed fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der . T hi s C our taff i r m ed the di s m i s s al of M r . Saenz’ s chal l enges t o the s t at e convi ct i ons and hi s cl ai m s “t o t he ext entt hatt heyr el yon al l egat i ons of m i s l eadi ng s t at ement s and i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r el at ed t o t he l ength of Saenz ’ s s ent ence upon entryof the gui l t ypl ea. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Saenz , 97 F. A pp’ x 836, 840 ( 10th C i r . M ay12, 2004) ( unpubl i s hed) . T he C our tr emanded forr econs i der at i on of hi s cl ai m s t o t he ext entt heyr ai s ed i s s ues t hatw er e notdeal tw i th on di r ectappea l

— namel y , that M r . Saenz’ s di ffi cul t yw i t h t he Engl i s h l anguage pr event ed hi s under s t andi ng of t he pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m , and thathi s couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neffect i ve in w a y s u n re la te d to th e le n g th o f s e n te n c e . Id. at839. W e di r ect ed the di s tr i ct cour tt o al l ow “furt herdevel opm entof the r ecor d” and t o m ake a “det erm i nat i on o n th e m e ri ts ” o f

M r. S a e n z ’s c la im s . Id. at840. O n re m a n d , the d istric t co u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r d ire c tin g M r. S a e n z to file a ll exhi bi t s , aff

i davi t s , and otherfac tual s upportforhi s cl ai m s bySept ember20, 2004. O n A ugus t30, 2004, M r . Saenz f i l ed a mot i on foran emer gencyr es tr ai ni ng or der , as s er t i ng t hathe coul d notcompl yw i th the court ’ s or derbeca us e he ha dT he or deral s o expl ai ned that“[t ] he C our ti nform ed M r . Saenz thathe had 1 been br oughtt o t he courtfort he purpos e of a n evi dent i aryhear i ng and thati f a cont i nuance i s t o be gr ant ed, t he hea r i ng w oul d then be c onduct ed byvi deo confe r ence and he w oul d notbe r eturned t o the court . ” Id. a t 1

– 2 . -4- been de ni ed ac ces s t o hi s r ecor ds . M r . Saenz a l s o fi l ed a mot i on forext ens i on of t i m e t o compl y . O n Sept ember7, 2004, he fi l ed a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el and a mot i on forl eave t o conductdi s covery . O n Sept ember21, 2004, he filed a m e m o ra n d u m o f law th a t se t o u t ad d iti o n a l fa c ts a n d p o in ts o f law to s uppor thi s cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . O n O ct ober4, 2004, the c o u rt a p p o in te d c o u n s e l to re p re s e n t M r. S a e n z . O n A u g u st 5, 20 0 5 , M r. S ae n z su b m itted a let ter t o the d istri ct co u rt ex p ressing d issati sfa cti o n w ith h is ap p o inted co u n sel. O n A u g u st 24 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. S ae n z’s c o u n sel fil ed a m o ti o n fo r an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , w h ich th e c o u rt s chedul ed forN ovember8, 2005. O n thatdat e, M r . Saenz w as br oughtt o the c o u rt to tes tify . A t th e h e a rin g , h e sta ted th a t h e h a d n o t h a d e n o u g h tim e to cons ul tw i t h hi s couns el , t hathe di s agr eed w i th couns el on how bes tt o pr ocee d, and thathe di d nothave i n hi s pos s es s i on nece s s arypaper s beca us e he ha d s ent th e m to h is fa m ily. U p o n M r. S a e n z ’s in s is te n c e , th e c o u rt o rd e re d a c o n tin u a n c e . I n i t s or der , t he courts t at ed that“the hea r i ng i s cont i nued and w i l l be r es chedul ed fo r a teleco n fe ren ce h ea ri n g w h en arran g em en ts can b e m ad e a n d the C o u rt ’s cal endar perm i t s . ” A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. E x. J . at 2. 1-5-

T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt la te r d e c id e d , h o w e v e r, n o t to c o n d u c t th e h e a ri n g . Instea d , o n Jan u ary2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , the c o u rtissue d an o rde r de n y ing M r. S ae n z’s r emanded § 2255 cl ai m s . T he courtexpl ai ned thatM r . Saenz’ s pr ot es t at i ons at t he N ovember8, 2005, hear i ng had “f rus tr at ed the effor tt o compl yw i th the M andat e t o det erm i ne w hethert her e i s anybas i s forr el i ef f r om the j udgm entand s ent ence , ” and that“[r ] athert han aga i n s chedul i ng a hea r i ng, ” the courthad deci ded t o r evi ew al l “pape r s t hathave be en fi l ed i n thi s m at t er. . . t o det erm i ne w hetherA bel Saenz ha s s etfor t h anyfac tual bas i s t o s uppor tthe gene r al i zed c o n t e n t i o n s h e h a s ma d e t h a th e d i d n o th a v e e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l . ” R. V o l. I, D o c. 23 9 , at 3. T h e c o u rtco n clud ed that h e h ad n o t. F ir st, the c o u rt fo u n d th a t M r. S a e n z d id n o t cla im fa c tu a l in n o c e n c e . In ste a d , “[ a ]ll o f h is cont ent i ons r el at e t o t he fa ctt hatbeca us e of hi s pr i orr ecor d of cr i m i nal convi ct i ons , hi s i ni t i al l yexpec t ed s ent ence . . . w as notan opt i on . . . . ” Id. Second, t he courtfound thatt he al l egat i ons conce rni ng at t or neyconfl i ctof i nt er es tal l r el at ed t o effect i ve as s i s t ance attr i al , and s i nce a di ffe r entatt or ney r epr es ent ed M r . Saenz a ts ent enci ng, thes e conc erns w er e “i rr el evant . ” Id. T hi r d, the d istri ct co u rtfo u n d that this C o u rth ad p rev iou slyaffirm ed M r. S ae n z’s s ent ence and “de ni ed hi s cont ent i ons thatthe pl ea w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . ” Id. a t 4 . L a st, th e c o u rt n o ted th a t “[ d ]e sp ite h a v in g h a d a m p le oppor tuni t yt o s ubm i ts uppor tforthes e vague cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and des pi t e the ful l oppor tuni tyt o pr ocee d w i th the evi dent i aryhear i ng,-6-

M r. S ae n z sim p lyh as re fu sed to p roc ee d in this m att er w ith p rov iding an ysu p p o rt forhi s cl ai m s . ” Id. M r. S ae n z so u g h t from this C o u rta c erti fica te of ap p ea labili ty(“C O A ”), s ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ), ar g u in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s fa ilu re to r es chedul e the evi dent i aryhear i ng deni ed hi m the abi l i tyt o pr es entevi dence on t he r emanded cl ai m s . W e gr ant ed the C O A and di r ect ed the governm entt o fi l e an ans w erbr i ef. T he governm entcompl i ed, and M r . Saenz ha s s ubm i t t ed tw o fi l i ngs i n r es pons e t o t he governm ent ’ s br i ef. DI S CU S S I ON M r . Saenz c ont ends t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng to h o ld th e c o n tin u e d e v id e n tiary he a rin g a n d th a t itw ro n g lyd e c id e d th e m e rits o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s. B e c a u se w e fin d th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n in d en y ing the e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g , w e n ee d n o t r ea ch the m erit s o f M r. S aenz’s cl ai m s. W hen a pr i s onerfi l es a pet i t i on under§ 2255, “[u] nl es s t he mot i on and the fi l es and r ecor ds of the ca s e conc l us i vel ys how t hatt he pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed t o no re lie f,” th e d is tr ic t c o u rt “ s h a ll . . . g ra n t a p ro m p t h e a ri n g th e re o n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255. W hen a di s t r i ctcour tr efus es t o gr antan evi dent i aryhear i ng and deni es a § 2255 pet i t i on, ourr evi ew pr ocee ds i n tw o s t eps . Fi r s tw e as k “w hethert he pet i t i oner ’ s al l egat i ons , i f pr oved, w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B ar boa , 777 F. 2d 1420, 1422 ( 10th C i r . 1985) . I f s o, w e det erm i ne w hethert heT h e g o v ern m en t argu es th at th is C o u rt ’s find ing o n d ir ec t app ea l th at M r. 2 S a e n z “ re a d a n d u n d e rsto o d ” h is p lea a g re e m e n t b a rs h is c laim th a t h e h a d tro u b le c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith c o u n s e l. See Sae nz , 10 F. A pp’ x at708. G i ven thatour or derof M ay12, 2004, char act er i zed thi s cl ai m as one thathad notbeen r ai s ed on di r ectappea l , w e ar e notfr ee t o concl ude thatt he pane l on di r ectappea l pas s ed on t hi s i s s ue. -7- d e n ia l o f

th e e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g c o n s titu te d a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Id. ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Ni cho ls, 1 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); s ee Sc hi r o v. Landrigan , 127 S. C t . 1933, 1939- 40 ( 2007) ( r eaffi r m i ng abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d for rev iew o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n n o t t o g ran t an e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g ). M r. S a e n z a lleg e s th a t h e e n ter e d in to a n in v o lu n tar yg u iltyp lea a s a re su lt of ( 1) hi s i nabi l i t yt o under s t and the Engl i s h l anguage , ( 2) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n se l d u e to in c o rre c t g u id a n c e o n th e re v e rsib ili tyo f th e p lea a g re e m e n t, ( 3) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el due t o fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e, and ( 4) in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l d u e to c o n flict o f in ter e st. A lth o u g h h is al l egat i ons r emai n vague, i f M r . Saenz c oul d es t abl i s h fac t s s how i ng thathi s pl ea w as i nvol unt aryforone of the r eas ons l i s t ed above , he w oul d i ndeed be ent i t l ed to re lie f. See Cerv ant es v. C ox , 350 F. 2d 855, 855 ( 10th C i r . 1965) ( “[W ] e have n o d o u b t th a t u n d e r e x tre m e c irc u m sta n c e s th e in a b ili tyo f a n a c c u se d to comm uni cat e w i t h hi s couns el m aydenyt o hi m the r i ghtt o effect i ve re p re s e n ta tio n a n d a c tu a lly re s u lt in th e e n tr yo f a p le a w ith o u t u n d e rs ta n d in g . . . .”) ; Hi l lv. L ockh art , 4 7 4 U .S . 5 2 , 5 6 (1 9 8 5 ) (“ W h e re . . . a d e fe n d a n t is 2 r epr es ent ed bycouns el dur i ng t he pl ea pr oces s and ent er s hi s pl ea upon the advi ce-8-

of couns el , t he vol unt ar i nes s of the pl ea de pends on w hethercouns el ’ s advi ce ‘w as w ith in the ran g e o f c o m p eten ce d em an d ed o f a tt o rne y s in c ri m inal ca ses.’” ( quot i ng McMann v. R i char ds on , 3 9 7 U .S . 7 5 9 , 7 7 1 (1 9 7 0 )); i d. at59 ( not i ng t hat a defendantw ho pl eade d gui l t ycoul d “al l ege[ ] . . . a fa i l ur e t o i nves t i gat e or d isc o v e r p o ten tiallye x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e ” ); Ham m on v. Ward , 466 F. 3d 919, 929–30 & n. 11 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( not i ng thatact i ve r epr es ent at i on of conf l i ct i ng interests co n sti tutes a d en ial o f th e righ t t o effe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel). W e tu rn , the n , to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng M r . Saenz a n evi dent i aryhear i ng. T he ans w ertur ns on w hether“the mot i on and the fi l es and r ecor ds of the ca s e conc l us i vel ys how t hat t he pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d not m ak e su ch a find ing in d ism issi n g this case o n the m erit s. Instea d , the c o u rt not ed that“the i nabi l i t yt o pr ocee d w i th [the evi dent i ary ] hear i ng beca us e of the d e fe n d a n t’s in sis ten c e u p o n a c o n tin u a n c e h a s f ru stra ted th e e ffo rt to c o m p lyw ith t he M andat e t o det erm i ne w hethert her e i s anybas i s forr el i ef f r om t he j udgm ent a n d s e n te n c e .” R . D o c . 2 3 9 a t 3 . T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s frus t r at i on w i th M r . Saenz i s under s t andabl e. I n our rem an d o rde r of

M ay1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , w e c all ed fo r “f u rth er d ev elop m en t of the re co rd a nd a de t e r mi na t i on on t he mer i t s ” of M r . Sa e nz ’ s c on s t i tut i on a l c l a i ms. 97 F. A p p ’x a t 8 4 0 . T h e d istric t co u rt w e n t to p a in s to g iv e M r. S a e n z th e o p p o rtu n ity to d e v e lo p th e re c o rd . In iti a lly , the c o u rt a ffo rd e d h im se v e ra l m o n th s to su b m it-9-

fa ctua l sup p o rtfo r his claim . A fter M r. S ae n z p rotested that p ri so n o ffici als w ere in h ib iti n g h is a b ili tyto c o m p lyw ith th a t d e a d lin e , the c o u rt a p p o in ted c o u n se l to r epr es enthi m and s chedul ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng. T hathear i ng began on N ov em ber 8, 20 05 . F rom t he ti m e of rem and , then , M r. S aenz h ad alm ost ei ght een mont hs t o puthi s cas e befor e the di s tr i ctcour t , both thr ough s ubm i s s i ons t o t he courtand thr ough l i ve t es t i m onyatan evi dent i aryhear i ng w i th the as s i s t ance of appoi nt ed couns el . Y etw hen M r . Saenz f i nal l yappea r ed befor e the cour t , he w as s t i l l notpr epar ed t o pr es enthi s cas e. H e no l ongeral l eged that pr i s on offi ci al s w er e the ca us e of hi s unpr epar ednes s . I ns t ead, he cl ai m ed that( 1) h e h a d in su fficie n t ti m e to c o n su lt w ith h is c o u n se l; (2 ) h e d isa g re e d w ith h is co u n sel ab o u t his i n tend ed test im o n y ; and , (3) h e d id n o t hav e re leva n t pap erw o rk w i t h hi m beca us e he ha d s enti tt o hi s fami l yi n advanc e of the hea r i ng ( even th o u g h , b yh is o w n a d m iss io n , h is fa m ilyw a s p re se n t at th e h e a rin g a n d c o u ld h a v e b ro u g h t th e e v id e n c e ). See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 7; A ppel l ee’ s B r . , A t t ach. 3, at 3–5. I n l i ghtof al l t hi s , i tw oul d nothave c ons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on for t he courtt o have de ni ed a c ont i nuance on N ovember8. T he courtcoul d have t aken w hatever evi den ce M r. S aenz w as prepared t o p res ent and d eci ded t he case b ase d o n that rec o rd. Instea d o f p roc ee d ing w ith the h ea ri n g , h o w ev er, th e c o u rt re sp o n d e d to M r. S a e n z ’s p ro tes ts b yg ra n tin g a c o n tin u a n c e a n d a g re e in g to pr ocee d vi a vi deoconfer ence ata l at erdat e. A tt hi s poi nt , M r . Saenz ha d no-10-

r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e h e fa c e d a n o w- o r - n e v e rs c e n a r i o — th e c o u r tp r o mi s e d h i m a fur t heroppor tuni t yt o pr es entw i tnes s t es t i m ony . I n ourpr i oror der , w e s t at ed t hat“[n] one of the[] i s s ues [M r . Saenz r ai s es ] coul d have be en r es ol ved upon the r ecor d compi l ed on di r ectappea l . ” Saenz , 9 7 F . A p p ’x a t 8 3 9 . B e c a u se th e sta te o f th e re c o rd re m a in s v irtu a llyu n c h a n g e d sin c e th e tim e o f th a t o rd e r, w e still cann ot concl ud e t hat “the m oti on and the fil es and records of the case c o n c lu s iv e ly sh o w th a t th e p ri s o n e r i s e n title d to n o re lie f.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A ccor di ngl y , w e R everse the or derof the di s tr i ctcourtand R e m and w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o gr antM r . Saenz one m or e opportuni tyt o pr es enthi s evi dence atan e v id e n tiary he a rin g , ev e n if b yv id e o c o n fe re n c e . F o r h is p a rt, M r. S a e n z sh o u ld b e p re p a re d to p re se n t h is c a se . If h e is n o t, th e d istric t co u rt w ill b e ju stified in d e c id in g th e m e ri ts o f h is c la im s b a s e d o n w h a te v e r r e c o rd e x is ts a t th a t p o in t. W e r ei t er at e thatM r . Saenz i s l i m i t ed t o the i s s ues i dent i fi ed i n thi s C our t ’ s or der and j udgm entof M ay12, 2004— namel y , t hatM r . Saenz’ s di ffi cul tyw i th the E ngl i s h l anguage pr event ed hi s under s t andi ng of the pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m , and t hathi s couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neffect i ve i n w ay s unr el at ed t o the l ength of s ent ence . A l l ot herpendi ng m ot i ons ar e deni ed. E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge