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

2-28-2007 

# U SA v . S hedr ick

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2329

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . S he dr ick " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1533. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1533P 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. 04- 2329

UN I TED STATES

v. J AM E S S HE DR I CK ,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 02- cr - 00523) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

A r gued J une 1, 2006 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S, and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui t J udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Febr uar y28, 2007)2 Pet erA

. L evi n, E s qui r e ( A r gued) 1927 H ami l t on St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19130 C ouns el forA ppel l ant Pat r i ck L. M eeha n U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ober t A

. Z auzmer A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief o f A p p e a ls T hom as P. H ogan, J r . ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nut St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui t J udge 

### Jam es Sh edri ck appeal s from the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s denial of his 28 U .S .C . § 22 55 peti ti onfo r habe as c or pus a l l e gi ng i ne ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e l

. The Gove rnm e nt c ont e s t s our ju ri sdic ti on , how ever , bec ause of an appell at e andcoll at er al3 

### r e vi e w wa i ve r

c ont a i ne d i n apl e aa gr e e m e nt s i gne d by Sh ed ri ck . W e c on clud e we have jurisdic ti onov er this appeal r e l at i ng t o i ne ffe c t i ve ne s s of c ouns e l c l a i m s . W e a ffi rm the Distri ct Co urt’ s denia l of S hedric k’s c la im that his tria l c ou nsel wa s i ne ffe c t i ve for

fa i l i ng t o a dvi s e hi m

about sen te nc i ng m atte rs . W e conc l ude, how ever , t hat i neff ect i venes s of couns el p re v e n ted S h e d ric k f

ro m tim e lya p p e a lin g h is s e n ten c e . W h ile t ypi cal l y w e w oul d r emand t hi s i s s ue t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t or r equi r e addi t i onal br i efi ng, nei t her i s nece s s ar y her e. A s s uch, w e a d d re ss th e c laim a ttac k in g h is s e n ten c e o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e c o n clud e th at claim ca n n o t be s u stai n ed , an d thu s af firm Shedr i ck’ s s ent ence . 

### I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBac k gr ound Inth e early

m o rn in g o f

Ju ly 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , P h ilad elp h ia Pol i c e Offi c e r s Ke yaMa s on, Ray m ond Rutt e r , and J oy

Ga l l e nRu iz, alo n g w ith S erg ean t B ev erly P em b ro o k , w ere o np atro l in Phi l a de lphi a ’ s 12th Di s tr i c t

. Offi c e r Ma s on r e s ponde d t o a911 em erg en cy

call rep o rtin g a m anw itha g un l o c atedat 6 4 th S tr e e t an dG reen w ay

A v enu e. Up o narriv in g at th at ad dress, Offi c e r Ma s on he ar d gun sh o ts but di d not s e e anyone i n the area. Se r ge ant

P e m br ook a l s o r e s ponde d i mm e di at e l y t o the 911 c a l l and, lik e Offi c e r Ma s on, di d not

fi nd anyone at

the s c e ne . Aft e r

as hort t i m e , howe ve r , Pe m

br ook obs e rv ed a m an—l at e r

i de nt i fi e d a s She dr i c k

— st andi ng i n the m i ddl e of4 

### the i nt e r s e c t i on hol di ng a l ar ge s i l ve r r e vol ve r i n hi s r i ght

hand. Pe m br ook m a de a pr i or i ty r a di o c a l l for ba c k- up, s t at i ng that the s u s p e c t w a s arm e dan dn o t

i nc u s t o dy. By that ti m e, M as o n had j oined P em broo k. Of

fice rs Ru tt er and G al le n-Ru iz , who were ri ding together , a ls o arr ived at the s ce ne. Pem

broo k andMason stoodin fro n t o f a po li ce c ar and att e m

pt e d t o e nga ge She dr i c k whi l e Rutt e r and Ga l l e nRui zbe gan t o a

ppr oa c h hi m

fr om c ove r e d positions be hi nd parke d c ar s . The offi c e r s r e pe at e dl y i ns tr uc t e d She dr i c k t o dr op the gun, but

h e ref u s e d. He poi nt e d the gun at the s ky and atte m pted to fire thre e s ho ts . The gu n f ai le d to d is char ge. T h e o f f icers rep eatedth eir o rd er f o r S h edrickto dro p h is gu n. H e again ai m ed the gun up ward and p ulle d the tr igger thre e m ore t im es . Yet ag ai n the gu n f ai le d to f ir e. Sh edri ck th eno p en ed up th e cylin d er o f th e rev o lv er, an dem

p ty sh ell ca si ng s fel l out of the w ea po n. When this occurre d, the polic e gang- t a c kl e d and di s arm e d hi m . Offi c e r Rutter c a l l e d i n a rep o rt in d icatin g th at S h edrickw as incu sto dy . Im m ediate ly afte r Shedric k w as deta ined, the of fice rs w ere ap p ro ach edb y

tw o p erso n s, L i N g uyenan dP atricia Edwar ds

. N g u ye n and Edwar ds s t at e d that the y ha d be e n i n a van on the i r

way to w o rk whe n She dr i c k ha d a ppe ar e d on the street an dstarted f

irin g sh o ts at th eir v eh icle. O n e o f th e b u llets s tr uc k the fr ont

hood of the van. A s e c ond bul l e t pe ne tr at e d the wind shie ld and travele d d ir ec tl y betwee n N gu yen, who wasS h e d ric k p le d g u ilt yin O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 in th e P h ilad e lp h ia 1 C o u rto f C o m m o n P leas to p o sses sio n w ith inten t t o d eli v er a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance ( coca i ne) and unl aw fu l p o s s es s i on of an u n lic e n s e d f

ir e a rm .

5 

### driv in g , an d E d w ard s, w h o w as inth e f ro n t p assen g er seat. Nguye n and Edwar ds r e port e d that the y we nt t o apol i c e s t at i on o n e b lo ck aw ay

to rep o rt th e sh o o tin g . Wh enth ey return edto the s pot whe r e the s hoot i ng ha d oc c urr e d, the y wi tne s s e d the pol i c e t a c kl i ng She dr i c k. T h e p o l i c e tracedth e g uninS h edrick ’s p o ssessio n , a Sm it h & We ss on.357 ca liber r evolver, to an individu alnam ed A k i B rickh o u se. B rickh o u se w as ch arg ed w ith , an d p ledg u ilty t o, tr ans fe rr i ng the we a

po n t o a c onvi c t e d f

e l on( Sh e dr i c k)

. He a l s o adm i tt e d that

She dr i c k ha d be e n s e l l i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne on a r egular basi s from

a l ocatio n in West

Ph il adelph ia

and h ad carriedth e S m ith& Wesso nw h ile d ealin g dru g s. She dr i c k wa s c har g ed w i th be i ng afe l on i n pos s e s s i on of afi r e arm

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1)

. He s i gne d a writte n agreem ent with the Go vernm ent, plea ding gu il ty to that c har ge and s pe c i fi c a l l y

a dm i tt i ng that

( 1) he pos s e s s e d the re vo lver , ( 2) he had a pri or felony re cord, and (3) the re vo lver

1 

### h adtrav eledinin terstate co mm erce. S h ed r i c kv ig o ro u sly con test ed, how ever , any

invo lvem ent i n the van sho oting (as d escrib edb y

N g uyenan dE dw ard s) an d an y dru g d ealin g w h ile6 

### arm edw ithth e rev o lv er (as d escrib edb y B rickh o u se). Th e ple a a gree m ent e xp re ss ly st ated that

Sh edri ck’s m axim um po te ntia l s ente nce was tenyears ’ i m pris on m ent. It we nt on t o not e that

the Gove rnm e nt

wa s pe r m i tt e d to “ m ake w h atev er sen ten cin g reco mm en d atio nas to im p riso nm en t . . . [ it] d eem s ap p ro p riate.” In d eed , b o thp arties w ere “f ree to ar gue the a

ppl i c abi l i ty of any othe r pr ovi s i on of the Se nt e nc i ng G u id elin es, in clu d in g o f

f en se co n du ct, o f

f en se ch aracteristics, crim in al h isto ry , ad

j u stm en ts an dd ep artures.” The a gr e e m e nt

a l s o inc l ude d apr ovi s i on wa i vi ng not onl y m os t a ppe a l s but

a l s o c ol l at e r a l att a c ks

. I t s t at e d: 10. I n e xc hange for

the unde rt aki ngs m a de by the gove rnm e nt

i n e nt e r i ng thi s pl e aa gr e e m e nt , the d ef en d an t v o lun tarily

an dex p ressly

w a i v es all r i ght s t o a

ppe a l or c ol l at e r a l l y

att a c k the defend ant’ s c on vict ion, se ntence , or any o th er m atte r r el at ing t o this prosec ution, wh et her s uch a rig h t to app ea l or c ollate ra l att ac k ari se s und er 18 U. S. C. § 3742, 28 U. S. C. § 1291, 28 U .S

. C. § 2 25 5, or

any othe r pr ov i s i onof

l aw.

a . No twit hsta nd ing the wai ve r pr ovi s i on above , i f the gove rnm e nt a ppe a l s fr om the s e nt e nc e , the n the defend ant m ay

file a d ir ec t a

pp ea l7 

### of his s ente nce. b

. If th e g o v ern m en t d o es n o t ap p eal, then no twith st anding the wai ver pr ovi s i on s e t forth i n par a gr a ph 10 abov e, the def

en dant m ay

file a d irect ap p eal b u t m ay r aise o n ly claim s th at: i. the defendant’s s ente nce exce ed s t h e s tatutory m axi m um ; or i i

. t h e s e n t e nc i ng judge er roneou s ly depart ed up w ardf ro m th e o th erw ise a ppl i c a bl e s e nt e nc i ng gu idel ine r ange. T h e D istrict C o urt c o n du c teda p lea h earin g in Nov em b er 2002. Dur i ng She dr i c k’ s gui l ty pl e ac ol l oquy , the Co urt conf

ir m ed and r ei nf

orce d the te rm s of the writte n p lea a gr e e m e nt

. At

the out s e t

of the he ar i ng, the Court s t at e d: A n da p lea ag reem en t h as b eenreach edan dit is re corded in writ in g andwillbe file d certa inly at th e en d o f th is p ro ceed in g . B u t, mo st im po rt antl y , a lth ou gh the ple a a gree m ent s tate s8 

### al l of the ag re em ents and u nd er st anding s that e xi s t b e t we e n the de fe ndant , de fe ns e c ouns e l , and the Gov er

nm ent, it do es no t r eco mm end a se t term o f in carceratio nas b in d in g up o nth is C o urt. Ul t i m at e l y , thea

p p r o p r i at e s e nt e nc e wo ul d b e l e ft to the e xerc is e of the Co urt’ s d is cr et ion b as ed upon i nform at i on pr e s e nt e d by both s i d es and ba s e d upon a r e vi e w of the Se nt e nc i ng G u id elin es. L ater, th e C o urt reiteratedth at th e sen ten ce w o u ldb e lef t to its d iscre t i on and that

the r e we r e no “ a gr e e m e nt s wi th anyone abou t what the ri gh t s ente nce sh o u ldbe.” Id

. at 63 . Shedric k c onfi rm e d thi s unde r s tan d i ng. He a l s o a c knowl e dge d that no othe r a gr e e m e nt s e xi s t e d be twe e n hi m s e l f and the Gove rnm e nt e xc e pt thos e c ont a i ne d i n th e wr i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt

. The Co urt then m ade clear to Sh edri ck that the m axim um se ntence inh is case w as tenyears’ in carceratio n . S h edrickd idex p ress s om e c onfus i on whe the r

the fa c t s a l l e ge d i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt in clu d edan adm issio n th at h e aim edo r sh o t at p o lice o f f icers, prom pting the Co urt to cl ar ify that he had on ly agre ed to plea d t o the ba s i c fa c t s of pos s e s s i ng the gun a s ac onvi c t e d fe l on and that any other i ss ues wer e le f

t t o the part ie s t o argue at s e nt e nc i ng. Af te r Shedric k enter ed his p le a, the Probati onOf fice prepare d a pres ente nce r eport ( “PSR ”) . I t c al culate d S hedric k’s base of fense l evelat

20 . I t t hen recom

m en d ed a fou r- le vel9 

### en h an cem en t u n d er U .S . S en ten cin g G u id elin es M anu al § 2K 2.1(b)(5) due to Sh edri ck’s prior fel on y conv ic ti onfo r a controll ed substance off ense and a th re e- le vel dow nw ar d ad j u stm en t un d er U .S . S en ten cin g G u id elin es M anu al § 3 E 1 .1 f o r accep tan ce o f resp o n sib ility . T h o se ad j u stm en ts resu ltedin an of fense l evelof

21 that , c om

b in ed with a c ri m inalhist ory categ o ry o f III, yield eda S en ten cin g G u id elin es ran g e o f 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s. Two we e ks pr i or t o s e nt e nc i ng, the Gove rnm e nt fi l e d a m em orandu m

with the D is tr ic t Cou rt

ar gu ing that ( 1) Sh edri ck wa s s ubje c t

t o a f o ur - l e ve l e nhanc e m e nt

for pos s e s s i ng a f i r e arm i nc o n n e c t i o n w i than o th e r f e l o n y o f f e n s e ( s p e c i f

i c a l l y, dr ug de a l i ng) , and ( 2) th e Court s houl d de part

upwar d e i ght le vels from

the e st abli shed Gu idel ines rang e bec ause Sh edri ck h add isch arg edth e w e ap o ndurin g th e co mm issio no f h is of fense (by

s ho ot i ng at

avan o c c up i e d b y

two pe op l e ). She dr i c k obje c t e d. The Di s tr i c t

Court held a s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng dur i ng whi c h the pot e nt i a l e nhanc e m e nt for pos s e s s i on i n c onne c t i on wi th anothe r

fe l ony offe ns e , a s we l l a s the upwar d de part ur e for shoo ti ng at the van, were contes te d. Th e Go vern men t c alle d two wi tne s s e s t o pr ovi de afa c t ua l ba s i s t o s upport

the en h an cem en t an dd ep arture: B rickh o u se an dN g uyen . Br i c khous e t e s t i fi e d that She dr i c k ha d be e n s e l l i ng c oc a i ne onar e gu l ar ba s i s and that bo th Sh e dr i c k and hi s ha l f-

### Be c aus e She dr i c k wa s we ar i ng abl a c k s hi rt whe n arr e s t e d, 2 

### it is no ta ble that Ngu yen te st ifie d that the shoo te r had been w e ar i n g aw h i t e s h i rt

. Wh e n c o n f r o n t e d b y th at

i n c o n s i s t e n c y, Nguye n a dm i tt e d that

he ha d foc us e d on the gun and c oul d have m ad e a m istak e ab o u t th e co lo r o f th e sh o o ter’s sh irt. 10 

### br othe r , Tar i k Robi ns on, ha d carr i e d the Sm i th & W e s s on rev o lv er w h ile d ealin g dru g s. Ng uy en te st ifie d that he and P atri ci a Edw ar ds were dr i vi ng t o work i n a r e d van at a ppr oxi m at e l y 5: 40 a

. m . on the date of Sh edri ck’s ar

re st, wh en a bla ck m an ho lding a si lver re vo lver st arte d sho oting at t

hem . The Go v ern ment prov ided phot ogr a phs t o the Di s tr i c t

Court s howi ng that

bul l e t s s tr uc k the l e ft fr ont hood of the van and th e m i d- wi nds hi e l d, pa s s i ng be twe e n the two p assen ge r s . Nguye n r e c ount e d goi ng t o a po lice st at ion to report the shoo ti ng , r et urning to wh er e i t had occurre d, and w it

ness ing the po li ce ta ckli ng the m an wh o h ad s hot at the van. 2 

### Af te r Bri ckho use andNg uy en’s te st im on y , Shedric k t estif ied t o hi s ve r s i on of e ve nt s . He a dm i tt e d that he ha d the gu n in his po ss es si on , bu t denied ever firi ng it

. He al so st at ed that he did not kn ow Bric kh ou se and had never see n N g u yen pr i or t o the s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng. T h e G o v ern m en t an dd ef en se co un sel th enen g ag edin e xt e nde d ar gum e nt s about the e nhanc e m e nt and de part

ur e . TheA p p lica tio n o f b o th th e f

o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t an d e ig h t- 3 l evel depar t ur e 

### yield ed a G u id elin es ran g e o f 8 7 to 1 0 8 m o n th s. 11 

### de fe ns e c ont e nde d that

the r e wa s i ns uffi c i e nt e vi de nc e t o s how that S h edr i c k e i the r

ha d be e n de a l i ng dr

ugs or ha d fi r e d the shots t hat s tr uck N gu yen’s van. Th us, i t was the defense’ s pos i t i on that

She dr i c k s houl d r e ceiv e as e nt e nc e wi thi n the stan d ardG u id elin es ran g e—4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s. Th e Go ve rnm e nt , on the othe r hand , m a i nt a i ne d that beca u se the e vidence dem on strate d that Shedric k h ad carr ie d the gun whi l e de a l i ng dr

ugs ( a s t e s t i fi e d t o by

Br i c khous e ) and th at S h edricksh o t at th e v an(as testif iedto b y N g uyen ), b o th the fou r- le vel en hancem ent andei gh t- le vel upw ar d d eparture s houl d a ppl y . I t r e c omm e nded to th e Court as e nt e nc e of 100 m onths ’ i nc ar c e r at i on. 3 

### At the close of the h eari ng , the Distri ct Co urt f ou ndthat Br i c khous e and Nguye n we r e c r e di bl e wi tne s s e s, and thus applie d the fo ur-l ev el enhancem ent andei gh t- le vel upw ar d de part ur e . Ac c or di ngl y , the Court s e nt e nc e d She dr i c k to 96 m onths ’ i nc ar c e r at i on t o be fol l owe d by thr e e ye ar s of sup erv isedrelease. She dr i c k wa s a

ppoi nt e d c ouns e l by

the D i s t ri c t Court for p urp o ses o f an ap p eal. O nA u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 (ap p ro x im ately six m onths a ft e r

sen tenc i ng) , c ouns e l fi l e d am ot i on for en larg em en t o f

tim e to sub m it a n o tice o f ap p eal nuncpro tunc .

### We also ap p o in te d S h e d rickn ew co un sel to p ursu e th is 4 

### ap p eal. O ur deci s i on i n Khat t ak l eave s t he mi s car r i age- of- j us t i ce 5 d eterm ination o p en -e n d ed , d ep en d ing o n v ariou s fa ctors i dent i fi ed i n Uni t e d

S t a t e s v . Te et er , 2 57 F

. 3d 14 , 25 –2 6 (1st

12 

### The Di s tr i c t

Court de ni e d the m ot i on on Augus t 27, 2003, and our Court di s m i s s e d the a

ppe a l a s u n t i m e l y

on Nove m

be r 25, 2003. She dr i c k ( thr ough c ouns e l ) pr oc e e de d t o fi l e a28 U. S. C. § 2255 habe as c or

pus pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch w as deni ed

. H e pet i t i oned pr o s e our C our t fora ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y , w hi ch w as gr ant ed fort w o i s s ues : “w het her couns el w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o advi s e [Shedr ick] of a pos s i bl e upw ar d depar t ur e ats ent enci ng; and w het hercouns el w as i neff ect i ve forfi l i ng an unt i m el yappea l

. ” B efor e w e r eac h 4 thes e issu es, ho w ev er, w e a d d ress the G o v ern m en t’ s j ur i s di ct i onal cont ent i on. I I I . Juri s di ct i on A ccor di ng t o t he G over nm ent , t he appe al and col l at er al at t ack w ai vercont ai ned i n Shedr i ck’ s w r i t t en pl ea agr eement s t r i ps our j ur i s di ct i on. W e di s agr ee. I n U ni t ed St at es v. Khat t ak , w e jo in e d th e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls f

o r te n o th e r c irc u its and hel d t hat“[w ] ai ver s of appe al , i f ent er ed i nt o know i ngl yand v o lu n ta ri ly, ar e v a lid , u n le s s th e yw o rk a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e .” 2 7 3 F. 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )

. I f a wa i v e r i s v a l i d , “ we 5C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), e. g. , how cl ear and gr ave an er r or exi s t ed, t he ef fec t of t hater r or on t he par t i es , and t he ext ent t o w hi ch t he def endant a c q u i e s c e d in th e e rr o r. Khat t ak , 273 F. 3d at563. W e not ed, h o w e v e r, th a t th e S e v e n th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s p e c if

ica lly hel d t hati neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns e l i nval i dat es w ai ver - ofa p p e a l p ro v is io n s . I

d. at562 ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed St at es v. Joi ner , 183 F .3 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )); s ee al s o Teet er , 257 F. 3d at25 n .9 ; U ni t ed St at es v. Her nandez , 2 4 2 F

. 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3

– 1 4 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Jem i s on , 2 3 7 F

. 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 6 n . 8 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 13 have no j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der t he mer i t s of [a n] appea l

. ” I d. H ow ever , “a fede r al cour t al w ay s has j ur i s di ct i on t o det er m i ne i t s ow n j ur i s di ct i on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . R u iz , 536 U

. S. 622, 628 (2 0 0 2 ); s ee R os ad o v. W ym an , 397 U

. S. 397, 403 n. 2 ( 1970) ( s ame)

. T hus , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o examine the w ai ver p ro v isio n o f

S h e d ric k ’s p lea a g re e m e n t to d e ter m in e its v a lid ity a n d , e v e n i f

v a l i d , wh a t i t s t e r ms d o a n d d o n o t a l l o w. O n in iti a l re v iew , it d o e s a p p e a r th a t S h e d ric k e x p re ss ly w a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l a n d c o llate ra llya ttac k h is s e n ten c e in par agr aph 10 of the pl ea a gr eement

. H ow ever , t he agr eement goes on t o s t at e t hatan appea l is pr es er ved i f anyof t hr ee c o n d iti o n s o c c u rs. T h e y a re , to re p e a t, (1 ) a G o v e rn m e n t ap p e a l, ( 2) a s e n t e n c e e x c e e d i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y ma x i mum, o r ( 3 ) an e rro n e o u s u p w a rd d e p a rtu re f ro m th e o th e rw ise a p p lica b le S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e .Shedr i ck’ s br i ef m i s t akenl y l um ps t oget herhi s enhanc ement 6 and hi s upw ar d depar t ur e. A n “enha ncement ” i s an adj us t m ent t o t he bas e off

ense level as s peci fi cal l ypr ovi ded byt he G u idelines , w h ere as a n “u p w ard d ep arture” is a d iscre tion ary adj us t m ent to t he G ui del i nes r ange onc e ca l cul at ed. A ft er U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), th e d if f e re n c e is now r epr es ent ed i n t he di s t i nct i on bet w een st eps one and t w o as s etout i n U

ni t ed S tates v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). W h il e S h ed ri ck h as a ri g h t t o ap p ea l t h e D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s upw ar d depar t ur e under hi s pl ea w ai ver , t he l i t er al w or ds of t hat w ai verm ake c l eart hathe has no concomi t antr i ght t o appea l an u p w a rd e n h a n c e m e n t. 14 It is u n d isp u ted th a t th e f irst t w o p re d ica tes d o n o t ap p ly here; the G overnm entdi d not appea l , and Shedr i ck’ s s ent ence o f 9 6 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t do es n o t exc e e d th e stat u tory m axi m um of t en y ear s . Shedr i ck mai nt ai ns , h o w ev er, t hatt he t h i r d c o n d i t i o n a p p l i e s , h e i s e n t i t l e d t o s e e k a c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w, and w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er app eal s den y i ng § 2 25 5 p et i t i on s. S p e c if ic a lly, h e a rg u e s , in ter a lia , t hathe w as deni ed t he r i ght t o appea l t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s er r oneous upw ar d depar t ur e fr om hi s ot her w i s e appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. 6

T he G over nm ent , on t he ot her hand, cl ai m s t hatShedr i ck “is n o t argu ing that the C o u rterro n eo u slyg ran ted a n u p w ard depar t ur e, but m er el yi s ar gui ng t hatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve for (1) a ll eg ed lyn o t i n fo rm ing h im that the p o tential fo r an u p w ard d e p a rtu re e x iste d .” G o v ’t B r. a t 2 8 . W e d isa g re e h e re a s w e ll. A t i t s e s s e n c e , Sh e d r i c k ’ s a r g u me n t i s t h a t , a s a r e s u l t o f t r i al15 couns el ’ s defi ci entper for m ance , he fai l ed t o appea l t i m el yt he D istric t C o u rt’s u p w a rd d e p a rtu re , w h ich h e w a s e n ti tle d to ap p ea l un d er the ex p ress te rm s o f th e p lea a g ree m en t w aive r. E n f o rc in g a c o llate ra l atta c k w a iv e r w h e re c o n stitu tio n a lly defi ci entl aw y er i ng pr event ed hi m fr om a d i r ectappea l per m i t t ed byt he w ai ver w oul d r es ul t i n a mi s car r i age of j us t i ce. T hus , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i deranyi neff ect i veas s i s t ance - of- couns el i s s ue. IV . M er it s A . Ineff ecti ven ess of

C ou n sel for Failu re to A dvis e Shedr i ck fi r s t ar gues t hathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el d u ri ng hi s pl ea pr oces s as a r es ul t of c o u n s e l’ s f

a i l u re to a d v is e h im a b o u t, in ter a lia , a pot ent i al u p w a rd d e p a r tu re a t s e n te n c in g . A c c o rd in g to S h e d ri c k , a “funda m ent al cons i der at i on for[hi m ] i n det er m i ni ng w het her

. . . to a c c e p t th e g u ilt yp lea w a s th e len g th o f se n ten c e h e c o u ld expec t t o r ece i ve. ”
U ndert he t w o- par t t es t of St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ), S h e d ric k m u st d e m o n s tra te th a t h is at t or ney ’ s per for m ance w as defi ci entand t hat he w as pr ej udi ced b ythe d ef

ici en cy . T h at i s, h e m u st pro v e tha t cou n s e l’s per for m ance “fe l l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , ” id . at 6 8 8 , a n d th a t “th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat , but for c o uns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal er r or s , t he16 r es ul t of t he proc eedi ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent

. ” Id

. at694.
S h e d r i c k c a n n o t s a t i s f

yt h e s e r e q u i r e me n t s . I n d e e d , we have l ong hel d t h at a n er r oneous s ent enci ng pr edi ct i on by couns el i s not i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w her e, as her e, a n a d e q u a te p le a h e a ri n g w a s c o n d u c te d

. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Jones , 3 3 6 F. 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o u n s e l not i neff ect i ve foral l egedl ypr om i s i ng defe ndant a s ent ence of “no m or e t han 71 mont hs ” w her e def endant w as advi s ed i n openco u rtco ll o q u yo f p o tential m ax im u m sen tenc e a n d th e re w ere n o otherpro m ise s re g a rd in g se n ten c e ); U n itedS ta tes v . M

u sta fa , 238 F. 3d 485, 49 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[A ] nyal l eged m i s r epr es ent at i ons t hat [def endant ’ s ] for m ercouns el m ayhave m ade r egar di ng s ent enci ng cal cul at i on s w er e di s pel l ed w hen [def endant ] w as i nfor m ed i n open cour tt hatt h ere w as no g u a ra n tee a s to se n ten c e , a n d th a t th e c o u rt c o u ld se n ten c e h im to th e m a x im u m .”); M

as ci ol a v. U

ni t ed St at es , 469 F. 2d 1057, 1 0 5 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 2 ) (

percur i am ) ( hol di ng t hat“[a ] n er r oneous pr edi ct i on of a s ent ence by defe ndant ’ s couns el does not r ender a g u ilt yp lea in v o lu n tar y ” w h e re re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t a pr operpl ea c ol l oquy t ook pl ace dur i ng w hi ch def endant acknow l ed g ed t hathe w as aw ar e of hi s m axi m um pot ent i al s ent ence )

. A s s t at ed i n Mu sta fa , [w ] e r ecogni ze t hatt he maxi m um s ent ence aut hor i zed byl aw i s oft en s o ext r aor di nar i l yl ong t hat few defe nd ants other t han “careercri m i nals ” plead gui l t yw i t h t he expe ct at i on t hatt he17 m a x im u m se n ten c e a p p lies to th e m . H o w e v e r, all t hat t h e l a w r e q u i r e s i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be i n f o r m e d o f h i s / h e r e x p o s u r e i n p l e a d i n g g u i l t y. T he l aw does n ot r equi r e t hata def endantbe g iv e n a re a so n a b lya c c u ra te “ b e st g u e ss ” a s to w h a t h is/h e r ac tu a l se n ten c e w ill b e ; n o r c o u ld it, gi ven the vagar i es and var i abl es of ea ch defe n d an t ’ s ci r cumst ance s and off endi ng b e h a v io r. 238 F. 3d at492 n. 5.
T hi s cas e fa ll s s quar el yw i t hi n w el l

- es t abl i s hed pr ece dent : defe ns e couns el ’ s conj ectur es t o hi s cl i entabout s ent enci ng ar e i r r el evant w her e t he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement and in-co u rtg u iltyp lea c o ll o q u yclea rl yestab li sh the d ef en d an t’ s m ax im u m p o tential ex p o su re a n d the s en tenc ing co u rt ’s di s cr et i on. Shedr i ck’ s w r i t t en, s i gned agr eement s t at ed t hat( 1) he fa ced a m axim um po t enti al sent e n c e o f t en y ears ’ i ncar cer at i on; ( 2) t he par t i es w er e fr ee to ar gue anyot her s ent enci ng i s s ues ( expl i ci t l yi ncludi ng depar t ur es ) ; ( 3) t he D i s t r i ctC our t r et ai ned ul t i m at e di s cr et i o n o v e rt he s ent ence ; and ( 4) t her e w er e no ot heragr eement s or pr om i s es r ega r di ng Shedr i ck’ s pot ent i al s ent ence . T h e D istric t C o u rt re p e a te d th e se f a c ts in o p e n c o u rt, s t a r t i n g t h e g u i l t yp l e a c o l l o q u yb yc o n f i r mi n g wi t h Sh edr i ck th a t18 m os t i m por t ant l y , al t hough t he pl ea a gr eement s t at es al l of t he agr eement s and under s t andi ngs th a t ex ist [ a m o n g ] th e d e f e n d a n t, def

e n se c o u n se l, and t he G over nm ent , i t does not r ecomm end a se t ter m o f in c a rc e ra tio n a s b in d in g u p o n th is C o u rt. U l t i m at el y , t he appr opr i at e s ent ence w oul d be l eft t o t he exe r ci s e of t he C ourt ’s di s cr et i on bas ed up o n i nfor m at i on pr es ent ed bybot h s i des and bas ed u p o n a r evi ew of t he Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s . It th e n c o n f

irm e d th a t S h e d ric k (1 ) h a d re a d , sig n e d a n d f u lly u n d erstoo d the p lea a g ree m en t, (2) u n d ers to o d that there w ere no ot herpr om i s es r egar di ng hi s pot ent i al s ent ence , and (3) had admi t t ed t he fa ct s of t he cr i m e. T he C our t fu r t heradvi s ed S hed ri ck th at t he m axim um po t enti al sent ence w as t en y ears ’ in c a rc e ra tio n a n d th a t itre tain e d f u ll d isc re tio n o v e r th e u lti m a te s ent ence . H er e, anyer r oneous s ent enci ng i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded by defe ns e couns el w as c o rr ect ed byt he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement and th e d e taile d in -c o u rt p le a c o llo q u y , b o th o f w h ich a c c u ra tely sta ted S h e d ric k ’s p o ten tial se n ten c e . G iv e n th is r e c o rd , itis inc oncei vabl e t hatShedr i ck di d not know he pot ent i al l yfac ed a m ax im u m ten-y ea r prison term

. In f ac t, h is al lega ti o n s b ef

o re our panel ar e fl at l yi ncons i s tent w i t h hi s w r i t t en, s i gned pl ea agr eement as w el l as hi s s w or n, i n- cour t ans w er s dur i ng hi s pl ea col l oquy . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our t co rre ct l ydeni edW i t h r egar d t o hi s fai l ur e- t o- advi s e ar g u m ent , Shedr i ck 7 r el i es heavi l yon one ca s e— Me y e rs v . G ill is , 142 F. 3d 664 ( 3d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )

— t o a d v a n c e h i s c l a i m t h a tb a d s e n t e nci ng inf o r m at i on pr ovi ded bya def ens e l aw y erequal s i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Meyers i nvol ved a ha bea s pr ocee di ng f ro m a sta te c o u rt g u ilt y p lea

. T h e d e f e n d a n t h a d p led g u ilt yto s econd de gr ee m ur der , w hi ch car r i ed a mandat or yl i fe s ent ence w i t h n o ch an ce of

par ol e. N onethel es s , t he def endantw as m isin f o rm e d b y c o u n se l th a t h e w o u ld b e e lig ib le f o r p a ro le in se v e n y e a rs. A t h is g u ilt yp le a , th e d e f e n d a n t w a s re p e a ted ly i n f o r m e d t h a t h e w o u l d b e c o m e e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e . I n c r e d i b l y, th a t ad v ice w a s n e v e r c o rre c ted b yth e p r o se c u to r o r th e sta te t r i al cour t

. W e hel d t hatM ey er ’ s couns el w as i neff ect i ve and re v e rs e d h is lif

e s e n te n c e . Meyers i s readil y dis t i ng uis hab l e from t he case b efore us. T he for m er i nvol ved r evi ew of a s t at e cour t pr ocee di ng l acki ng a det ai l ed gui l t ypl ea a gr eement and a Rul e 1 1 g u i l t ypl ea col l oquy . M or e i m por t ant l y , t he t r i al cour t i n Meyers f a iled to corr ectt he er r oneous s ent enci ng i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded on t he rec o rd b yd ef

en se co u n sel. In sh arp co n tr ast, the D ist ri ct C o u rt h e re c o rre c ted a n ya lleg e d m isp e rc e p tio n b y S h e d ric k a b o u t h is p o ten tial se n te n c e b ya c c u ra tely in f o rm in g h im th a t h is m axi m um pr i s on s ent ence w as t en y ear s and t hatt he C our t had th e d is c re tio n to s e n te n c e h im u p to th a t m a x im u m . S ee Scar br ough v. Johns on , 3 0 0 F

. 3 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 3

– 0 4 , 3 0 6 (3d C ir

. 2002) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng Meyers an d f in d ing n o erro r w h ere 19 Shedr i ck’ s § 2255 m ot i on as t o hi s cl ai m t hat couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai li n g to advi s e hi m of t he pot ent i al foran enhanc ement or upw ar d depar tur e. 7defe ns e couns el m i s i nfor m ed defenda nt t hathe w as el i gi bl e for par ol e buts t at e cour t r epea t edl yand cor r ect l yi nform ed d e f e n d a n t th a t h is p e n a ltyw a s a n “ a u to m a tic lif e se n ten c e ” w ith n o ch an ce o f p aro le). 20 B . I nef f ecti venes s of

C ounsel f orFai lure to A

ppeal Shedr i ck’ s s econd c ont ent i on i s t hathi s th e n - c o u n s el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l i ng t o fi l e a t i m el y appea l i n t hi s ca se. In reso lving this clai m , w e a re g u ided b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U

. S. 470 ( 2000)

. T her e, t he C our t addr es s ed w het hercouns el m ay be found defi ci entfor fai l i ng t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l abs ent s peci fi c i ns t r uct i on fr om t he def endantnot t o d o so . B eca us e t he ques t i on conce r ned w het hercouns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on w as cons t i t ut i o n a l l yd e f ect i ve, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e tw o -p a rt St r i ckl and tes t g o v e rn e d its in q u ir y . Id

. at476–77. A ppl y i ng t hats t andar d t o t he par t i cul ar f a c ts b e f o re it, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t “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 the d efendantaboutan appe al w hen t her e i s r eas on t o t hi nk ei t her( 1) t hat a r at i onal defe ndant w o u ld w an t t o ap p ea l ( fo r e x am p le, b ec au se th ere are nonfr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l ) , or ( 2) t hatthis par t i cul ar defe ndantr ea sonabl ydemonst r at ed t o couns el t hathe w as i nt er es t ed in ap peal i ng. ” Id

. at480. T he C our t fur t her e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t “ e m p l o y[ e d ] t h e t e r m ‘ c o n s u l t ’ t o c o n v e y a s peci fi c meani ng— advi s i ng t he def endantaboutt he adva nt ages a n d d isa d v a n tag e s o f tak in g a n a p p e a l, an d m a k in g a re a so n a b le e f f o r t t o d i s c o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s wi s h e s . ” Id

. at478.21 A d d iti o n a lly , the C o u rt in stru c ted th a t co u rts u n d e rta k in g th is in q u iry , as w ith a ll i n e f f e c tiv e a ss ist a n c e c laim s, “ tak e in to acc ount al l t he i nfor m at i on couns el k new or s houl d have know n. ” Id

. at480 ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 ).
W i t h r e s p e c t t o S tr i ckl and ’s pre jud ice p ron g , the C o u rt h e ld th a t th e h a rm les s e rro r in q u irya p p lied a n d th a t re lief c o u ld n o t be g ran ted u n le s s the d ef en d an t “de m o n str ate[ s] t h at t h ere i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y that, but forcouns el ’ s defi ci ent fai l u r e t o c o n s u l t wi t h h i m a b o u t a n a p p e a l , h e wou l d have t i m el yappea l ed. ” Id

. at484. T he C our t di d not i dent i fyany det er m i nat i ve fact or s i n t hi s r egar d, but di d s t r es s t hat“evi dence t hatt her e w er e non- fr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l o r t hatt he d e f e nd ant ati ssue prom ptl yexp res sed a de si re t o ap peal w ill oft en be hi ghl yr el evant

. ” I d. at485.
A re v iew o f th e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t S h e d ric k “ re a so n a b ly demonst r at ed t o couns el t hat he w as i nt er es t ed i n appea l i ng” by v e h e m e n tly c o n tes tin g th e f a c tu a l iss u e s tha t le d to h is enhanc ement and upw ard de par t ur e t hr oughout t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . See G ov’ t B r . at18 ( acknow l edgi ng t hat S h e d ric k “ h o tlyc o n tes ted ” th e f a c tu a l issu e s le a d in g to h is e n h a n c e m e n t a n d u p w a rd d e p a rtu re b o th p rio r to a n d d u rin g h is se n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g s); s ee al s o A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at78–79 ( demonst r at i ng t hat Shedr i ck, dur i ng hi s pl ea c ol l oquyand pr i or t o pl eadi ng gui l t y , s pec ifi cal l yens ur ed t hathe w as not conce di ng anyi nvol vement i n t he van s hoot i ng i nci dent or any att em p t t o fire the w ea p o n at p o li ce ). In th is co n text, S h ed ri ck ’s22 cou n sel had “ a cons t i t ut i onal l y - i m pos ed dut yt o cons ul t w i t h” h im c o n c e rn in g a p o s s i b l e a p p e a l. F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U

. S. at 4 8 0 ; s ee id

. at481 ( “W e expe ctt hatcour t s eval uat i ng t he r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r ma n c e u s i n g t h e i n q u i r ywe have de s cr i bed w i l l fi nd, i n t he vas t m aj or i t yof ca s es , t hat couns el had a d u ty to c ons ul t w i t h t he def endantaboutan ap p ea l. ”).
T he G over nm entar gues t hat S hedr i ck “makes no a lle g a tio n th a t h e e v e r d ir e c te d c o u n s e l to [ f i l e a n a p p e a l] .” G ov ’t B r. at 58

. Indeed , S hed ri ck’s habeas c o u n se l w ro te in h is b rie f to o u r C o u rt th a t “[ t]h e re c o rd d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t [ trial] c o u n se l h a d a n yd isc u ss io n w ith [ S h e d ric k ] re g a rd in g a n a p p e a l. I t i s al s o uncl ear w het her [Shedr i ck] s peci fi cal l y as ked [hi s t r i al co u n sel] t o fil e a n ap p ea l. ” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. at 17

. W e a re u n ce rt ain w h y su ch co m m en ts w ere m ad e in ligh t of S h ed ri ck ’s ex p li cit stat em en t in a let ter to the D ist ri ct C o u rt , d ated F eb rua ry 26, 2003 ( before t he appe al deadl i ne had pa s s ed) , t hathe had a sk e d h is tria l co u n se l to f il e a n a p p e a l o n h is b e h a lf. In th is cont ext , She d r i ck’ s t r i al couns el knew atl eas t one of t hr ee th in g s— S h e d ric k a sk e d th a t an a p p e a l b e f iled , h e lik e lyw o u ld w a n t to a p p e a l, or h e w a s in ter e ste d in a p p e a lin g

— a n d y e t d id n o t f ile a n a p p e a l.
T h ere i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hatShedr i ck’s at t or neycons ul t ed w i t h hi m pos t

- s ent enci ng. I ndeed, Shedr i ck e x p re ss lyst a te d in lette rs s u b m itt e d to th e D istric t C o u rt b o th d u rin g a n d a f

te r th a t p e rio d th a t h is tria l co u n se l f a iled toFor t hos e conc er ned t hat Shedr i ck get s t o appea l beca us e of 8 a t e c h n i c a l i t yt h a t wi l l p r o v e f r u i t l e s s ( s e e s u b s e c t i o n “ C” bel ow ) , w e not e t hatw het herShedri ck has a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on appea l i s of no m om enther e; t o s at i s fy t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of St r i ckl and i n thi s context , S hed ri ck m ust m erel yest abli sh t hat his app eal w ou l d h ave b een n on -fr i vo l ou s. A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 386 U

. S. 738, 744 ( 1967) ( expl ai ni ng t hat an appe al on a mat t erof l aw i s fr i vol ous onl yw her e “[ none] of th e leg a l p o in ts [ is] a rg u a b le o n th e ir m e rits” ); D eut s ch v. U ni t ed 23 c o n su lt w ith h im d u rin g th e a p p e a l p e rio d

. E v e n if c o u n se l d id s o, t her e i s l i t t l e ques t i on he w as defi ci entforfai l i ng t o fi l e an a p p e a l b e c a u se S h e d ric k sta ted o n th e re c o rd th a t h e w ish e d to appea l w hi l e t hatopt i on w as avai lable. I f couns el di d not cons u l t wi t h Sh e d r i c k d u r i n g t h e a p p e a l p e r i o d , t h e n h e w as defi ci entund er R o e-O r t ega for no t do i ng so. U nd er t hese c irc u m sta n c e s, it is n o t n e c e ss a ryf o r u s to re m a n d th is c a se to t he D i s t r i ctC our t for a factual fi ndi ng t hat couns el ei t herdi d or di d not cons ul t w i t h Shedr i ck b ecaus e couns el w as defi ci ent e i t h e r w a y. A s i t w as i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of counse l t hatpr event ed Sh ed ri ck fr om t i m el yappea l i ng t he upw ar d depar t ur e— a c h a llen g e p e rm itt e d b yh is p lea w a iv e r— w e h o ld th a t h e is enti t l ed to a di rectapp eal chall eng i ng t hat de part ure. B ecause it has been thoroug hlybri efed by cou nsel , w e deem it unnece s s ar yt o cal l forfur t herbr i efi n g , and t hus w e tur n our at t ent i on t o t he mer i t s of t he s ent enci ng. 8S t at es , 67 F. 3d 1080, 1085–86 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( defi ni ng fr i vol ous nes s i n a 28 U

. S. C

. § 1915( d) cas e as “of l i t t l e orno w ei ght , val ue, or i m por t ance ; pal t r y ; t r um per y ; not w or t hyof se rio u s a tten tio n ; h a v in g n o re a so n a b le g ro u n d o r p u rp o se ” ); s ee als o R o b e rt G . B o n e , Mo d e lin g Friv o lo u s S u its , 1 4 5 U. Pa

. L. R ev. 51 9, 53 0, 53 3 (199 7) ( rej ec ti ng “l ow -pr ob abil i t y ” as a d e f in itio n o f f

ri v o lou s li tig a tio n ); C h a rl e s M . Y a b lo n , The G ood, t he Bad, and t he Fr i vol ous C as e: A n E s s ay on P r obabi l i t y and Ru l e 11 , 4 4 U C L A L

. R ev. 65, 67 ( 1996) ( ar gui ng t hatnonfr i vol ous cas es ar e “lon g sh ot s t hatdi dn’ t pan out , r at hert han bas el es s cl ai m s t hat s houl d neverhave be en br ought ”)

. T hough w e accep t S hed ri ck’s app eal and rul e against him on t he m eri t s, hi s ar gum ent s ( as noted b elow ) m eett hi s m i ni m al s t andar d. M or eover , as t he C our t expl ai ned i n F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U

. S. at 48 6, “i t [w ou l d be] unf

ai r t o requir e an indi gen t , perhap s pro se , defe ndantt o d em ons t r at e t hathi s hypot het i cal appea l m i ght h av e ha d m erit b ef

o re an y ad v o ca te ha s ev er rev iew ed the re co rd i n hi s cas e i n s ear ch of pot ent i al l ym er i t or i ous g rou n d s for a p p e a l.” 24 C . U pw ard D epa rtu re A s expl ai ned above , Shedr i ck r ece i v ed an ei ght

- l evel u p w a rd d e p a rtu re u n d e r U .S . S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 5 K 2 .6 (sta tin g th a t “[ i]f a w e a p o n o r d a n g e ro u s in stru m e n tality w as us ed orpos s es s ed i n t he comm i s s i on of t he offen se[ , ] t he cour t m ayi ncr eas e t he s ent ence above t he aut hor i zed gui del i ne r ange” ) forfi r i ng a gun at an occupi ed van. R el y i ng on U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), h e a r g u e s th a t h e is e n tit led to re -se n ten c in g becau se the “D i strict C o u rt e x c e e d e d itsI t d oes not appea r t hatShedr i ck makes t he i ndepende nt 9 ar gum ent( r oot ed sol el y i n t he F i ft h A m endment ) t hat , i f nott he j ur y , t hen t he J udge s houl d have f ound t he enha ncement bey ond a re aso n ab le d o u b t. O u r an aly sis of su ch a c lai m , h o w ev er, w o u ld m ir ro r w h a t a lr e a d yis s e t o u t h e re . See U ni t ed St at es v. G r i er , N o. 05- 1698, ___ F. 3d ___, 2007 W L 315102, at*1 ( 3d C ir

. F eb

. 5 , 2 0 0 7 ). 25 aut hor i t y , as l i m i t ed byt he S ixth A m endment , byenhanc i ng [hi s ] offe ns e l evel w i t hout t he re qui s i t e j ur ydet er m i nat i on” and w it h o u t app ly ing a reaso n ab le-do u b t stan d ard

. A p p ell an t’ s B r. at18. 9

T he ques t i on w het her a j ur y neede d t o fi nd t he fa ct s t hat for m ed t he bas i s for Shedr i ck’ s ei ght

- l evel depar t ur e bey ond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w we r e v i e w de novo

. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 2 3 5 F

. 3 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he D i s t r ic t C our t ’ s fac t ual fi ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed forcl ear e rr o r. U ni t ed St at es v. G i bbs , 1 9 0 F

. 3 d 1 8 8 , 2 0 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ).
I n B ooker , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t f a c ts re lev a n t to t he now - advi s or y G ui del i nes do not i m pl i cat e t he cons t i t ut i onal r i ght t o t r i al byj ur ys o l ong as t he s ent ence does not exce ed t he s t atut or ym axi m um s et by t he U ni t ed S t at es C ode (i n our cas e, t en y ear s )

. 543 U

. S. at259. T h u s, t he fi ndi ng of fa ctati s s ue her e nee d not hav e b een s ubm i t t ed t o a j ur y . M or eover , our C our t has expr es s l y s t at ed t hat“[a ] s befor e B ooker , the s tand ard o f p ro o f u n d e r th e g u id e lin e s f

o r s e n te n c in g f

a c ts c o n tin u e s to26 be prep o n der ance of t he evi dence

. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F

. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). A s su ch , the D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e p rep o n d era n ce -of -t h e-e v iden ce stan d ard c o mp o r t s wi t h t h e S i x t h Am e n d me n t u n d e r c u r r e n t c a s e l a w. I d. ; see al so G r i er , 2007 W L 315102, at*1–8 ( expl ai ni ng how B ooker ’s rem ed ial o p inion fa cil it ates this co n clus ion ).
T he evi dence pr es ent ed att he s ent enci ng hear i ng s uppor t s t he conc l us i on t hatShedr i ck fi r ed at t he van oc cupi ed byN guy en and Edw ar ds

. A lt h o u gh N guy en mi s i dent i fi ed t he col or of Shedr i ck’ s s hi r t , he t es t i fi ed conf i dent l yt hatShedr i ck w as t he i ndi vi dual w ho had s hot i n h is di r ect i on. G i ven Shedr i ck’ s pr oxi m i t y t o N guy en at t he t i m e of the a ll eged s hoot i ng, hi s conce s s i on t hathe w as i n pos sess i on of a gun w hen t he shoot i ng occur r ed, and t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r ul i ng t hat N guy en’ s t es t i m ony w as cr edi bl e, w e ca nnot concl ude t hatt he C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t S h e d ric k h a d sh o t at th e v a n w a s c lea rly e rr o n e o u s . T h u s , w e a f f ir m S h e d ri c k ’s s e n te n c e . V . C oncl usi on For t he re as ons expl ai ned above , w e have j ur i s di ct i on ov er t his app eal rel at i ng t o ineffect i ven ess- of-cou nsel cl ai m s. W e p roc ee d to af

firm the D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f S h e d rick ’s § 2255 pet i t i on concerning t he cl ai m t hathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l i ng t o advis e him as t o s entenci ng m a t t ers . H ow ever , Shedr i ck has demonst r at ed t hathi s t r i al couns el w as inef fe cti v e u n d er R oe- O r t ega f o r fa ili n g to a f

f o rd S h e d ric k h is27 ap p ea l r igh ts. W e thu s rev erse the C o u rt ’s de n ial o f S h ed ri ck ’s § 2255 pet i t i on on t hi s cl ai m . B eca us e t he i s s ue i s ful l ybr i efe d, w e c o n sid e r th e m e rits o f S h e d ric k ’s c laim o f

e rro r re latin g to t he upw ar d depar t ur e of hi s s ent ence . T hatcl ai m w e r ej ect , and t hus w e af

fi r m hi s s ent ence .