2009 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 10-26-2009 

# U SA v . R ich ard Zuck

e rm an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2145

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . R ich ar d Zucke rm an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 388. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/388AL D- 0 1 2 NOT P 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. 09- 2145

___________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. RI CH AR D P AUL Z UC KE RMAN,

A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 91- C R - 00108) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

O ct ober16, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R icha rd P au l Z u ck erm an ap p ea ls from an o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

N ew Jerse y , w h ich d en ied h is pe ti ti o n fo r a w ri t of erro r coram no bis orA ft ert r eatm ent , t he Feder al C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atB ut nerdeci ded that 1 Z u ck erm an w as n o lon g er in n ee d o f treatm en t, an d h e w as re turn ed to the D istri ct C o u rt f o rs e n t e n c i n g . On F e b ru a r y2 2 , 1 9 9 3 , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ts e n t e n c e d Zu c k e r ma n t o t i me s erved, and pl ace d hi m on s upervi s ed r el eas e fort hr ee y ear s . A ns w er , D i s t . C t . dkt . #6, at 5- 6. 2 a u d ita q u e re la . B eca us e the appe al r ai s es no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. A s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e r ecountonl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o an under s t andi ng of thi s deci s i on. Z uckerm an w as i ndi ct ed i n 1989, char ged w i t h m ai l i ng a t hr eat eni ng comm uni cat i on t o a fe der al j udge ( s i t t i ng i n N ew J er s ey ) , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 876 and 2. T hati ndi ctm entw as eventual l ydi s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o t he U ni t ed St at es . A boutone y earl at er , t he Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on and the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce l earned thatZ uckerm an w as at t empt i ng t o buyguns i n Fl or i da and r etur n w i t h t hem t o N ew J er s ey . T he pr os ecut orr etur ned t o t he gr and j ur yand obt ai ned a s econd i ndi ctm entchar gi ng Z uckerm an w i t h t he s ame offens e cha r ged byt he fi r s ti ndi ctm ent . Z uckerm an pr ocee ded t o t r i al and w as found gui l t y . A s t he C our tfound t hatZ uckerm an w as i n need of ps y chi atr i c ca r e, Z uckerm an w as or i gi nal l ygi ven a pr ovi s i onal s ent ence of hos pi t al i zat i on i n a s ui t abl e fa ci l i t ypur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 4244. 1 Z u c k e rm a n w a s u n su c c e ss f u l o n d ire c t ap p e a l. Z uckerm an fi l ed a mot i on forr el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n 1992, r ai s i ng c laim s c o n c e rn in g in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ied , an d th is C our taff i r m ed. Z uckerm an fi l ed a s econd § 2255 mot i on i n 1994, r ai s i ng addi t i onal3

cl ai m s conce r ni ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef a nd t hi s C our taff

i r m ed. O vera dec ade l at er , Z uckerm an fi l ed the pet i t i on ati s s ue her e. Z uckerm an s ought to ra ise th e f

o llo w in g iss u e s: (A ) in lig h t o f D istric t o f

C o lu m b ia v . H e ller, 1 2 8 S . C t. 2783 ( 2008) , hi s convi ct i on vi ol at ed the D ue Pr oces s cl aus e of the Fi fth A m endment b e c a u se th e d e c isio n to p ro se c u te th e se c o n d in d ictm e n t w a s b a se d o n h is a ttem p ts to pur chas e fi r earm s ; ( B ) he s houl d have be en gr ant ed a c hange of venue; ( C ) he w as ent i t l ed t o an appe l l at e pane l fr om anotherci r cui ton di r ectappea l ; ( D ) t he appoi nt ed a d v iso ryd e f

e n se a tto rn e yp ro v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l; (E ) th e T h ird C irc u it engage d i n unl aw ful r et al i at i on byent er i ng a j udgm entor deron di r ectappea l r athert han hear i ng or al ar gum ent ; ( F) t he tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o advi s e the j ur yt hat exagge r at i on i s a def

ens e t o a mai l t hr eatchar ge; ( G ) t he SpeedyT r i al A ctw as vi ol at ed; (H ) th e c o u rt-a p p o in ted c rim in a l d e f e n se a tto rn e yp ro v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e in obt ai ni ng ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on; ( I ) t he tr i al j udge underm i ned hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al by tel li n g the ju rythat itw as re q u ir ed to f o ll o w the tri al co u rt ’s i n stru cti o n s; an d (J) th e c o u rt s houl d l i ber al l yr el i t i gat e i s s ues t hathad ea r l i erbeen a s s er t ed and de ni ed. T h e D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r a n d o p in io n o n O c to b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , d e n y in g w ith pr ej udi ce Zuckerm an’ s r eques tt o r el i t i gat e i s s ues , and hi s al r eadyl i t i gat ed cl ai m s ( i s s ues “G , ” “H , ” and “ J ”) . T he C our tal s o deni ed cl ai m s “E” and “I ” bec aus e theyw er e w i t hout m eri t . T he C ou rtrequi red R espon den t s t o an sw er the rem ai ning cl ai m s.A l t hough Z uckerm an i s not“i n cus t ody , ” i f w e found thatextr aor di naryr el i ef 2 p u rsua n t t o a w ri t of

erro r coram no bis ora w r i tof audi t a quer ela we r e wa r r a n t e d , we as s um e Zucker m an coul d s how cont i nui ng cons equenc es fr om hi s convi ct i on. See T or zal a v. U ni t ed St at es , 545 F. 3d 517, 521 ( 7 C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hatcour thad th j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derappea l fr om uns ucce s s ful § 2255 m ovantw ho had bee n r el eas ed 4 A ft ercons i der i ng t he ans w erand Zucker m an’ s r epl yand s uppl ement al r epl i es , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the r emai ni ng cl ai m s . Z uckerm an appe al ed, and w as i nfor m ed that t he C our tw oul d cons i ders um m aryact i on. Z uckerm an fi l ed a br i ef i n r es pons e. O u rr e v i e w o f

t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s i s p l e n a r y, a n d w e a p p l y a cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d t o i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs . O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 119- 20 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e m ay a f f i r m o n gr ounds di ffe r entt han thos e us ed byt he di s t r i ct c o u r t i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n . Kabakjian v. United States, 267 F.3d 208, 213 ( 3d Cir. 2001). T h e w ri t of

erro r coram no bis and the w r i tof audi t a quer ela a re a v a ilab le in cr i m i nal cas es t o t he ext entt heyfi l l s i n gaps i n t he curr ents y s t em of post - convi ct i on reli ef. M asse yv . U n it ed S tat es, 58 1 F . 3 d 1 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( a u d ita q u e re la ) ; U ni t ed S tat es v . B ap ti ste, 2 2 3 F . 3 d 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o ra m n o b is ) . W e r ece nt l yr ei t er at ed that a mot i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i s t he pr es um pt i ve means of cha l l engi ng a fede r al convi ct i on, and i n t he r ar e i ns t ance w her e a § 2255 mot i on i s “i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve, ” a f

eder al pr i s onerm ayr es or tt o a w r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. M as s ey , 581 F. 3d atn. 1. H er e, how ever , beca us e Zucker m an i s no l onger in cu stod y , h e c o u ld n o lon g er f il e a § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n (ev en w ith this C o u rt ’s pe rm issi o n ), norcoul d he fi l e a § 2241 pe t i t i on. W e have not ed, “[w ] er e no otheravenue of j udi ci al 2fro m cu stod yb ec au se o f h is i n ab il ityto p o sses s firea rm s law fu ll y ). 5 re v iew a v a ilab le f

o r a p a rtyw h o c laim s th a t s/h e is f a c tu a llyo r le g a llyin n o c e n t as a re su lt of a pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on, w e w oul d be fa ced w i t h a thor ny c o n s titu tio n a l is s u e .” In re D o rs a in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Such i s nott he ca s e her e, how ever . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. R i cht er , 510 F. 3d 103, 104 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( fi ndi ng w r i tof audi t a quer ela does notl i e t o r ai s e cl ai m underU ni t ed S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 )). Z u c k e rm a n c a n n o t sh o w th a t § 2 2 5 5 is “i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve” t o r ai s e hi s cl ai m s l et t er ed “B” t hr ough “J . ” H e pur s ued a d ire c t ap p e a l, an d h a s h a d tw o p o st-c o n v ictio n c h a n c e s to ra ise c h a llen g e s to h is convi ct i on and s ent ence . M as s ey , 581 F. 3d at174 ( pet i t i onerm aynotr es or tt o a u d ita quer ela s i m pl ybeca us e he c annots at i s fyr equi r ement s of A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) ) ; B apt i s t e, 223 F. 3d at189- 90 ( pet i t i onerm aynot r es or tt o c o ra m n o b is s im p ly b e c a u s e h e c a n n o t s a tis f yre q u ir e m e n ts o f

A E D P A ). Z uckerm an’ s onl ycl ai m t hatcoul d nothave be en r ai s ed i n an ea r l i erm ot i on oron d i r e c ta p p e a l i s h i s c l a i m b a s e d o n H e l l e r , b e c a u s e H e l l e rw a s n o td e c i d e d u n t i l 2 0 0 8 . We need notcons i der , how ever , w hetherZ uckerm an coul d pr ocee d byw ayof coram no bis or audi t a quer ela t o pur s ue hi s H el l ercl ai m , beca us e Zucker m an has nots how n t hats uch an extr aor di naryr emedyi s nece s s ary ; i . e. , t hathe w as convi ct ed forconductt hatw as not cr i m i nal , s ee D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d at248; ort hatan err oraff ect s t he veryj ur i s di ct i on of t he tr i al cour t , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. St oneman, 870 F. 2d 102, 106 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . M ai l i ngF u rth e r, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t Z u c k e rm a n ’s D u e P ro c e ss c laim is 3 w i t houtm er i t . H el l erdoes noti m pugn t he pr os ecut or ’ s m ot i vat i on fors eeki ng t he s econd i ndi ctm entagai ns tZ uckerm an. See H el l er , 128 S. C t . at2816- 17 & n. 26; D i s t . C t . O p. at 5 (Jan . 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ). Z u c k e rm a n ’s m o tio n to e x p a n d th e re c o rd is g ra n ted , as th e d o c u m e n ts h e se e k s th is 4 Co u r tt o r e v i e w a r e p a r to f t h e c r i mi n a l r e c o r d b e l o w.

6 a thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i on i s a cr i m e, and Zucker m an makes no cl ai m t hatt he D i s t r i ct Co u r tl a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r yt h e c a s e a g a i n s th i m. 3 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 4