T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a s e , re s ju d ic a ta , a n d c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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 ,

P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , N o. 08- 2038 v. D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co M AR T I N S AAVE DR AVI LL ASE NOR ,

D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. ( D . C . N os . 2: 06- C R - 00615- W J - 1 & 1: 07 - CV - 00 94 6- W J - RL P)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e TA CHA , KEL LY and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M art i n Saavedr a- V i l l as enor , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) t hatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om t he di s t r 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 . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enor has fa i l e d t o ma k e “ a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , ” we d e n yh is re q u e s t fo r a C O A a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- Backg r ound O n A ugus t18, 2006, M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enor , an al i en, pl ed gui l tyt o r ee n t e r i n g th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l ya f t e rb e i n g d e p o r t e d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. §§ 1326( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2) . T he i ndi ctm ental l eged thathe had a pr i oraggr avat ed fel onyconvi ct i on for“D om es t i c B at t ery , Second O ffe ns e. ” The pr es ent ence r eportr ecomm ended a s i xt een l evel enhanc ementon acc ountof M r . Saavedr aV i l l as enor ’ s pr i orfel onydom es t i c batt eryconvi ct i on. M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enor m ade no obj ect i on t o t he r ecomm ended e nhance m ent . A tt he pl ea he ar i ng, aft er the pr os ecut ors ai d t hatM r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enor“had be en convi ct ed of aggr avat ed fe l ony , thatbei ng dom es t i c batt ery , s econd offens e, ” the defendant co n firm ed that this st atem en t w as c o rrect. T h e d istri ct co u rtthen sen tenc ed M r. Saavedr a- V i l l as enort o a t erm of 77 m onths i n pr i s on fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. A ft ers ent enci ng, M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enorfi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e, s et as i de, orcorr ecthi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . 2255. H e ar gued thathi s couns el w a s in e ffe c tiv e b e c a u se h e fa iled to in v e stig a te th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n yo f d o m e stic vi ol ence , w hi ch Pet i t i onercl ai m ed w as pr i m ar i l yforverbal abus e. T he m agi s tr at e j udge fi l ed a r eportr ecomm endi ng di s m i s s al of the pet i t i on. T he r eportconcl uded thatM r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enorhad tw o pr i orconvi ct i ons for dom es t i c batt eryamount i ng t o an aggr avat ed fe l onyunderfede r al l aw , and that M r . S a a v e d r a - V i l l a s e n o rr e a d th e p l e a a g r e e m e n t , r e v i e w e d i tw i th h i s a t t o rn e y,-3-

and vol unt ar i l ys i gned i t . M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enorfai l ed t o fi l e anyw r i t t en obj ect i ons t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportorr ecomm endat i ons w i thi n the req u isi te t en -da yp eriod . T h e D istri ct C o u rtac ce p ted th e m ag istrate jud g e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s , is s u in g a n o rd e r d e n y in g P e titio n e r h a b e a s re lie f. D i s cus s i on 1 . Cer t i fi c a t e o f

Appe a l a bi l i t y T he deni al of a mot i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2255 m aybe appe al ed o n ly if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s h o wi n g o f

th e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . ” 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . To m a k e su c h a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anner orthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483- 84 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W her e, as her e, t he di s tr i ctcourtdeni es habea s r el i ef on p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, th e p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id . at478.T h e p e tit io n e r’s “ tra v e rse m o tio n ” d o e s n o t q u a lifya s a w ritten o bjec tio n to 1 the r eportand r ecomm endat i on, as i tw as fi l ed befor e the magi s tr at e j udge i s s ued h is re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n . -4- B yfai l i ng t o fi l e obj ect i ons t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, the pet i t i onerhas w ai ved the r i ghtt o appel l at e r evi ew on the 1 m e ri ts o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r. S e e Mo r a l e s - Fe r n a n d ezv . I NS , 418 F. 3d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); see also Tho m as v. A rn , 474 U . S. 140, 147- 48 ( 1985) . T her e ar e tw o exce pt i ons t o the w ai verrul e: ( 1) w her e a pr o s e l i t i gant w as noti nform ed of the t i m e per i od forobj ect i ng and the cons equenc es of fa i l i ng to d o s o , o r ( 2 ) w h e re th e “ in te re s ts o f ju s tic e ” re q u ir e re v ie w . See Morales Fer nandez , 4 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 9 ; s ee als o Moor e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 950 F. 2d 656, 659 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). N ei therexce pt i on appl i es . T he magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand re c o m m e n d a tio n e x p licitlysta ted in its first fo o tn o te th a t a p a rtym u st file obj ect i ons w i thi n t en day s of s ervi ce i f appe l l at e r evi ew i s des i r ed. T he r el evant par agr aph ends bys t at i ng, “I f no obj ect i ons ar e fi l ed, no appel l at e r evi ew w i l l be a l l o w e d . ” T h e fi r s te x c e p t i o n th e r e fo r e d o e s n o ta p p l y. A s t o t he “i nt er es t s of j us t i ce” exce pt i on, w e have hel d thatt hi s i s s i m i l ar to re v ie w in g fo r p la in e rr o r u n d e r F e d . R . C ri m . P . 5 2 (b ). Mor al es - Fer nandez , 4 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 0 ; s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 507 U . S. 725, 736 ( 1993) ( des cr i bi ng pl ai n err orr evi ew ) . T o s at i s fyt hi s s t andar d, a pet i t i onerm us ts how thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed err ort hati s pl ai n, affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and-5-

“s er i ous l yaffect [s ] the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” See Uni t ed Stat es v. Haney , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 6 -67 (10 th C ir . 2003) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 7 3 2 ). O nl yi f the di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed pl ai n err orw i th r es pectt o the cha r act er i zat i on of pet i t i oner ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on orw i th r es pectt o hi s cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l ma ywe e x e r c i s e o u rd i s c r e t i o n a n d r e a c h th e me r i t s o f h i s c l a i m. 2. A gg r av at e d Fel ony M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enorar gues th a th i s p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n w a s o n l y a m i s demeanorand notan aggr avat ed fe l ony . H ow ever , t he r ecor d befor e the d istric t co u rt sh o w e d (1 ) th a t h e p lea d e d g u iltyto a n in d ictm e n t th a t li ste d h is p r e v i o u s o ffe n s e a s a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y c o n v i c t i o n fo r“ D o m e s t i c B a t t e ry, S ec o n d O ffen se” ; ( 2 ) th at he fil ed n o o bjecti o n to the p rese n tenc e re p o rt ’s r ecomm endat i on of a s i xt een l evel enhanc ementon acc ountof hi s pr i orfel ony d o m e s tic b a tte ry c o n v ic tio n , s ee Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 3) ( A ) ( the court“may acc eptanyundi s put ed port i on of the pr es ent ence r eportas a fi ndi ng of fa ct ”) ; and ( 3) thathe expl i ci t l yadmi t t ed att he pl ea he ar i ng thathe “ha d been c onvi ct ed of aggr avat ed fe l ony , thatbei ng dom es t i c batt ery , s econd offens e. ” M r . Saavedr aV i l l as enorfai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence t hathi s pas tconvi ct i on w as notan ag g rav ated fe lon y . B ase d o n this reco rd, th e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t com m iterro r, le t a lo n e p la in e rr o r, i n fin d in g th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n t a p p lie d .N ei therpartyhas expr es s l ys t at ed w hen Pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed of 2 d o m e stic b a ttery. H o w e v e r, th is p a rticu lar p ro v isio n o f Illino is la w h a s b e e n in e ffe c t s in c e J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 4 . -6- 3. I neffect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ounsel M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enoral s o ar gues t hathi s couns el pr ovi ded i neffect i ve a ss ista n c e b yn o t in v e stig a tin g th e n a tu re o f h is c o n v ictio n s o r o bjec tin g to th e ir c la s s ific a tio n . T o s u c c e e d o n a n in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l c la im , a defe ndantm us ts how thathi s couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s ta n d a rd o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s a n d th a t th e d e f ic ie n c yp reju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). A s b o th th e m a g istra te j udge and di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded, M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enorcoul d s how nei therof the Str i ckland req u ir em en ts. C o u n sel’s fa il u re to f u rth er inv esti g ate h is cl ient’s p a s t c o n v ic tio n s w a s n o t o bje c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . U n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 ), a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n yin c lu d e s , in tera lia , a st at e or federal “cri m e of v i olence for w hich the term of im pri sonm ent [i s] atl east o n e y e a r.” T h e P e tit io n e r in c u rre d h is p rio r c o n v ictio n in Illino is. U n d e r Illin o is l aw , do m est i c batt eryi s a C l ass A M i sdem eano r, bu ti s consi dered a C l ass 4 Fel onyi f i ti s a s econd- t i m e offens e. 720 I LL . C OMP . S TAT . A NN . 5/ 12- 3. 2( b) ( L exi s N exi s 2008) . A C l as s 4 Fel onyi s puni s habl e byno l es s t han one y earand 2 no m ore than three y ears . 73 0 Il l . C om p. S t at . A nn . 5/5- 8-1(a) (7) (Lex i sN exis 2 0 0 8 ). B e c a u se d o m e stic b a ttery i s a v io len t cr im e , an d a se c o n d d o m e stic-7-

batt eryoffe ns e i s puni s habl e i n I l l i noi s byno l es s than one y eari n pr i s on, i ti s an a g g ra v a te d fe lo n yu n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 ). N o r eas on exi s t ed forPet i t i oner ’ s couns el t o cont es tthe cl as s i fi cat i on of the pr i orconvi ct i on, es peci al l ycons i der i ng M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enor ’ s r epea t ed aff i r m at i ons of i t . A l though he now as s er t s i n hi s br i ef be for e thi s cour tthathe w as se n tenc ed o n lyto se v en m o n ths’ p rob ati o n , there is no ev iden ce in the rec o rd thathe r ece i ved a s ent ence l es s than the mi ni m um the s t atut e s peci fi es . T o s how i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , the bur den i s on the pet i t i onert o pr es ent e v id e n c e a n d to p ro v e th e fa c ts u n d e rl y in g h is c la im . Un itedS ta tes v . C ro n ic , 466 U . S. 648, 658 ( 1984) . Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence t o the di s tr i ct courtthatt ended t o pr ove hi s pr i ors ent ence w as forl es s than one y earorthe p rio r c o n v ictio n w a s n o t an a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t co m m it th e e q u iv a le n t o f

p la in e rr o r w h e n it r eje c te d a c la im b a s e d o n n o e v id e n c e .

C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . Saavedr a- V i l l as enor ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s GRANT ED . E n ter e d fo r th 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