FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 11, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 12203 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 6 6 - C V - 3 - L A C - MD V I C T O R R E N E A N G U L O , P la in tif f - A p p e llan t, v ersu s S C O T T F I S H E R , W a r d e n , D e f e n d an 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 orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 11, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Angulo was convicted by a jury of two counts: (1) c onspiracy to import cocaine ; and 1 (2) importation of c ocaineinto the United States. 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a). 2 V i ct or R ene A ng ul o, a p ro se f e de r a l pr i s one r , f

i l e d thi s c ourta c c e s s a c t i on agai nstthe w ar den atF eder alP ri son C am p (F P C ) P ensa col a a l l egi ng he w as de ni e d m e ani ngf

ul a c c e s s t o the c ourt s be c aus e F P C P e ns a c ol af a i l e d t o pr ovi de h im w ith e ith e rle g a l r e s e ar c h m a te r ia ls in S p an is h o ra n a lte rn a tiv e m e th o dto re se ar ch po t ent i alcl ai m s. S peci fi ca l l y, A ng ul o m ai nt ai ned F P C P ensa col a’ s l ac k o f le g a l a ido rr e s e ar c h m a te r ia ls f o rn o n - E n g lis h s p e a k in g in m a te s p r e v e n te dh im fro m d i sco v eri n g h i s tri alco u n sel w as i n effecti v e w h en tri al co u n sel d i dn o trai se a s ade f e ns e the f

a c ttha tA ngul o l e ga l l ypos s e s s e d c ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e s i n the n o rm a l c o u r s e o f

h is im p o rt- e x p o rt b u s in e s s . A n g u lo a lle g e dh e w a s f o r c e dto 1 re l y on “ j ai l ho use l aw ye rs ” t o fi l e a28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 m ot i on , and h e di d n otas se rt hi s i neff ec t i ve as si st ance cl ai m . H e onl y di sc ov er ed hi s i neff ec t i ve as si st ance c l a i m a f t e ra nothe ri nm a t e , w ho w a s nota tF P C P e ns a c ol aw he n he f i l e d hi s § 2255 m ot i on, i nf

orm e d hi m aboutthe c l a i m . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt s ua s p o n te , p u r s u an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) , f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im b ecau se i td i dn o ti d en t i fy an actu al i n j u ry, as req u i redb y L ew is v . Casey , 1 1 6 S. C t. 2 1 7 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . We r e v i e w de no vo a § 19 15 (e )( 2)(B )( i i ) s ua s p o n te d is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im , v ie w in g th e c o m p la in t’s a lle g a tio n s a s tru e . H u gh es v . L o tt , 350 F . 3d3

1 1 5 7 , 1 1 5 9 -6 0 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). A n i n m at e assert i n g an access clai m “ m u st i dent i fyw i thi n h i s c om pl ai nt , a ‘ no nfri vo l ou s, ’ ‘ ar gu abl e’ un derl yi ng cl ai m , ” a s

“ an ac ce ss cl ai m i s t o p rovi de vi nd i cat i on for ase para t e and di st i nctri gh tt o see k j ud i ci alre l i ef

. ” B arbo ur v. H

aley , 4 7 1 F .3 d1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. deni ed , 127 S . C t . 2996 ( 2007) . A pl a i nt i f f c an e s t abl i s h a c tua l i nj uryby de m ons tr a t i ng hi s “ e f

f ort s t o pur s ue anonf

r i vol ous c l a i m w e r e f

rus tr a t e d or i m peded b y adefi ci encyi n the pri son l i brary or i n the l egalas si st ance prog ram . ” I d. a t 1 2 2 5 . W e nee d n otdeci de w hether F P C P ensa col a’ s l ac k o f l egalai d o r r es earc h m a te r ia ls f

o rn o n - E n g lis h s p e a k in g in m a te s p r e v e n te dA n g u lo f r o m d is c o v e r in g h is in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im b e c au s e h is c la im is f r iv o lo u s . A n g u lo cl ai m ed hi s tri alcoun se l w as i neff ec t i ve because he di d n otpres entthe defense that A n g u lo w a s a llo w e dto le g a llyim p o rt ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e s in c e it w a s d o n e in th e n o rm a l c o u r s e o f

h is im p o rt- e x p o rt b u s in e s s . See 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 5 7 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . H o w e v e r , 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 5 7 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( b ) lis ts a n e x e m p tio n to th o s e w h o a r e r e q u ir e dto r e gi s t e rt o i m portac ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e unde r21 U . S . C . § 957( a ) . T he e xe m pt i on d o e s n o t ap p lyto A n g u lo ’s s ta tu te s o f c o n v ic tio n , 2 1 U .S .C . § § 9 5 2 ( a ) a n d9 6 3 . T h u s , A n g u lo ’s c la im is f r iv o lo u s a n dw e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l. AF F I RME D.