FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 1, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14754 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 20 -C V -H L M -4 T E R E S A S U E C O W A R T , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 1, 2005)

B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C UR I AM T e r e s a S u e C o w a r t, ac o u n s e le d f e d e r a l p r is o n e rs e rv in g a 1 3 5 - m o n th2

s e nt e nc e f

orc ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a tl e a s t500 gr a m s of m e th a m p h e ta m in e , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h e rp r o s e m o tio n to vaca t e, se tas i de, or corr ec ther s ent ence , 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, i n w hi ch she c l ai m ed tha the rc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f or : ( 1) f a i l i ng t o a dvi s e he ra de qua t e l y c onc e rni ng he rgui l ty pl e a ; ( 2) f

a i l i ng t o m ove t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng; ( 3) f a i l i ng t o ne got i a t e a gui l ty pl e at o C ount2 of the i ndi c tm e nt , r a the rtha n C ount 1; (4) f ai l i ng t o rai se i ss ues c on ce rni ng drug qu ant i ty; (5) f ai l i ng t o rai se i ss ues concerni ng C ow art ’ s r ol e i n the offens e; (6) f ai l i ng t o argue for a dow nw ar d de pa r tur e ba s e d on s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e ; a nd ( 7) f a i l i ng t o r a i s e a n i s s ue c o n c e rn in g C o w a r t’s p o s tp a r tu m d e p r e s s io n w h e n s h e p le d g u ilty . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed C o w art ’ s m o t i o n , fi n d i n g th atal l o f th ese cl ai m s, exce pton e, w er e barre d b y herpl eaagre em ent , w hi ch st at ed, i n p ert i nentpart , that s he “ vol unt a r i l y a nd e xpr e s s l y w a i ve [ d] the r i ghtt o appe a l he rs e nt e nc e a nd the r i ghtt o c ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c k he rs e nt e nc e i n a ny pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ng on a ny gr ound. ” T he di s tr i c tc our ta ddr e s s e d he rc l a i m tha the rc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f or f a i l i ng t o a dvi s e he ra de qua t e l y c onc e rni ng he rgui l ty pl e aon the m e r i t s , rul i ng a g a in s t C o w a r t. W e g r a n te d a C e r tif ic a te o f A p p e a lab ility ( “C O A ” ) o n o n e is s u e :

“ W he the rappe l l a nt ’ s w a i ve rof he rr i ghtt o appe a l he rs e nt e nc e di r e c t l y or col l at er al l y a l so prec l ud ed her cl ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . ”3

O n app ea l , C ow artar gu es thather c l ai m s thatconcerned the val i di ty of her gu i l ty pl eaor her app ea l w ai ver, and n other s ent ence , w er e notprec l ud ed by her sen t en ce-ap p eal w ai v er. S h e ack n o w l ed g es th atw e, i n W i l l i am s v . U n i t ed S t at es, 39 6 F . 3d 13 40 , 13 42 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), hel d thata val i d sent ence -app ea l w ai ver prec l ud es a def

endantfr om att em pt i ng t o att ac k h i s s ent ence throu gh a c l ai m of in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l d u r in g s e n te n c in g . H o w e v e r , s h e p o in ts o u t th a t, i n W i l l i a m s , w e s t a t e d tha tthe r e m a y be a di s t i nc t i on w he r e the § 2255 c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l r e l a t e s t o the va l i di ty of the pl e aorw a i ve r , a nd notthe s e nt e nc e . S he a r gue s tha tthr e e of he rc l a i m s , na m e l y tha tc ouns e l f a i l e d t o: ( 1 ) a d e q u a te ly a d v is e h e rc o n c e rn in g h e rg u iltyp le a ; ( 2 ) n e g o tia te a g u ilty p le ato C ount2 i ns t e a d of

C ount1; a nd ( 3) r a i s e the i s s ue of he rpos tpa r tum de pr e s s i on w he n s he pl e d gui l ty ; a r e s t i l l vi abl e be c a us e the y do notr e l a t e t o s e nt e nc i ng but g o d ir e c tly to th e v a lid ity o f th e w a iv e ro rp le aits e lf . W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i ons i n a 28 U . S . C . § 2255 pr oc e e di ng, a nd i t s f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . M c C a r thy v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 320 F . 3d 12 30 , 12 31 -123 2 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). S ent ence -app ea l w ai vers ar e val i d i f they a r e m a de know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . W i l l i a m s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 396 F . 3d 1340, 13 41 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). In W i l l i am s, w e hel d thata val i d sent ence -app ea l w ai ver p r e c lu d e s § 2 2 5 5 c la im s b a s e d o n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a t s e n te n c in g .The district c ourt found that one of the plea issues w as not prec luded by Cowart’s sentence 1 a pp e al w aiver: her c laim that her c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv ein adv isingher ab out her ple a agre e ment. Any challeng e to the district cour t’s merits deter

mination o f this iss ue is outside the scopeof the COA, which only

contemplates review of the issues that the district court de emed preclude d. There fore , beca

use our review is limited to the issue s p ec i fi ed in the COA, a nd Cowart has not re qu e ste d th at th eCO A b ee xpande d toinc ludea c halleng eto t

hedis tric t c ourt ’smerits dete rm i n at i o n s , we do not address this issue. See Murra y v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998); see also J ones v. United States, 224 F.3d 1251, 1255- 56 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that, unless defendant succ essfully expands the COA to include a c laim, we nee d not addre ss it).

4 I d . a t 1 3 4 2 . H o w e v e r , w e s p e c if ic a lly s ta te d : O f c our s e , the r e m a y be a di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n a§ 2255 c l a i m of i n effecti v e assi st an ce i n en t eri n g o r n eg o t i at i n g th e p l ea v ersu s a c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s a ts e nt e nc i ng ora c l a i m c ha l l e ngi ng the val i di ty of the pl eaor agre em ent. . . B ec ause W i l l i am s' s c l ai m s a ss ert i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s a ts e nt e nc i ng a nd do notc onc e rn r e pr e s e nt a t i on r e la tin g to th e v a lid ity o f th e p le ao rw a iv e r , w e n e e d n o t, a n d d o n o t, r e a c h the othe rs i tua t i on. I d. a t1342 n. 2 ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . A ddi t i ona l l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C o p e la n d , 3 8 1 F .3 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , in th e c o n te x t o f a d ir e c t ap p e a l, w e h e ld th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e - ap p e a l w a iv e rw a iv e d o n ly h is r ig h t to ap p e a l s e n te n c in g is s u e s , a n d th u s c o n s id e r e d th e m e r its o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c la im th a tth e g o v e rn m e n tb r e a c h e d th e p l e aa g r e e m e n t . 3 8 1 F . 3 d a t1 1 0 5 . T h e r e , we foun d the l angu age of the defendant ’ s app ea l w ai ver, w hi ch spec i fi ca l l y app l i ed o n ly to th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d , c o n tr o llin g . I d . I . P l e a Cl a i ms 1 In thi s c as e the di stri ctcourterre d b y f i nd i ng thatC ow art ’ s c l ai m s thather5

coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o: (1) negot i at e agu i l ty pl eat o C ou nt2, i nst ea d of C ou nt1; and (2) rai se an i ss ue re gardi ng C ow art ’ s postpartum depres si on ; w er e pr e c l ude d by C ow a r t ’ s s e nt e nc e - appe a l w a i ve r . A s i n C ope l a nd, the l a ngua ge of C o w a r t’s s e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e rp r o v id e d th a t s h e w a iv e d h e rr ig h t “to c o lla te r a lly a tt a c k he rs e nt e nc e , ” a nd di d notm e nt i on aw a i ve rof the r i ghtt o a tt a c k he rpl e aor th e p lea a g re em en t i tself. S ee C o p elan d , 3 8 1 F .3 d at 1 1 0 5 . T h er ef o re , C o w ar t’ s va l i d s e nt e nc e - appe a l w a i ve rdoe s notpr e c l ude the s e i s s ue s , w hi c h r e l a t e t o the v a lid ity o f

th e p le a o rw a iv e rits e lf . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n a s to th e s e c la im s is v a c a te d , a n d w e r e m a n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rit to c o n d u c t a m eri t s rev i ew o f th ese cl ai m s. I I . S e n t e n c i n g Cl a i ms A s t o the s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue s tha tC ow a r tr a i s e s i n he r§ 2255 m ot i on, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y f ou nd thatthey w er e pre cl ud ed by C ow art ’ s val i d sent ence appeal w ai ver und erW i l l i am s. T he re cord supp ort s the concl usi on thatC ow art kn ow i ng l y a nd i nt el l i gent l y w ai ved h erri gh tt o app ea l her s ent ence , si nce: (1) her appe a l w a i ve rw a s s pe c i f i c a l l y r e a d i nt o the r e c or d; ( 2) C ow a r ts t a t e d tha ts he u n d e r s to o d th e ap p e a l w a iv e r ; a n d ( 3 ) s h e a s s u r e d th e c o u r t th a t s h e w is h e d to w a i v e h e rr i g h tt o ap p e a l . Th e r e f o r e , s h e i s p r e c l u d e d f

r o m r a i s i n g th o s e c l a i ms th a tr e l a t e t o h e rs e n t e n c i n g . S e e Wi l l i a m s , 3 9 6 F . 3 d a t1 3 4 2 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we6

affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f h er § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n as t o th o se fo u r cl ai m s. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.