FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Januar y 9, 2007 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. 06- 13851 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 0 4 - 0 8 0 1 5 - CV- 4 - CL S- TM P & 0 1 - 0 0 1 6 8 - CR - CL S A L T O N R U M L E Y D U B O S E , J R ., P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E 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 rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 9, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Ba sed on the COA’ s limi tation to counsel’s actions on the date of sentencing , the COA 1 do e s n ot enc omp a ss t

heissueof

a pp e llatec ouns e l’ s e ff

e c tiv ene ss. B e c a

us ea pp e llatereview i s limit ed to the issues spec ified in the COA, wedo not consider Dubose ’s claim of ine ffe ctive assistanceof appe llate counse l. See Murra y v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998). 2 A lto n R u m le y D u b o s e , J r ., ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is coun se l ed m ot i on t o v ac at e, un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. D ub ose f i l ed hi s m ot i on af

t er the e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l tyA c tof 1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 104- 32, 110 S t a t1214 ( 1996) . T he r e f or e , the pr ovi s i ons of the A E D P A gove rn thi s appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d ac e rt i f i c a t e of appeal abi l i ty ( “ C O A ”) w i th res pectt o the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: W h e th e r , o n N o v e m b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 1 ( th e d a te o f m o v a n t’s s e n te n c in g ) , it w a s 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, in v io la tio n o f th e S ix th A m e ndm e nt , f

orm ova nt ’ s a tt orne yt o f a i l t o obj e c ton the ba s i s of A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ), t o fi nd i ng s of f ac t be i ng m a de by the s e nt e nc i ng c ourt( r a the rtha n aj ury ) i n c onne c t i on w i th sen t en ci n g u n d er th e U n i t ed S t at es S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. O n appe a l , D ubos e a r gue s tha thi s tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance by fa i l i ng t o rai se such an ar gu m ent . F or the re as on s s etforth m ore 1 f u llyb e lo w , w e a f

f irm . W e r e vi e w a n i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m de novo. C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 1305, 1312 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) . I n or de rt o pr ove in ef fe ctiv e a ss istan ce o f c o u n se l, a d ef en d an t m u st sh o w th at co u n se l’ s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t a n d th a t h e w a s p r e ju d ic e d a s ar e s u lt. S tr i c kl a nd v.3

W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 , 8 0 L .E d .2 d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) .

“ F orpe r f orm a nc e t o be de f

i c i e nt , i tm us tbe e s t abl i s he d tha t , i n l i ghtof a l l the ci rc um st ance s, coun se l ’ s per form ance w as ou t si de the w i de rang e of profes si on al co m p et en ce. ” P u tm an v . H ead , 2 6 8 F . 3 d1 2 2 3 , 1 2 4 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). “ W e ask onl y w he the rs om e r e a s onabl e l a w y e ra tthe tr i a l c oul d ha ve a c t e d, i n the c i r c um s t a nc e s , a s de f

e ns e c ouns e l a c t e d . . . . ” W hi t e v. S i ngl e t a ry , 972 F . 2d 1218, 1220 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . T hi s i nqui ryi s obj e c t i ve a nd w e “ m us te va l ua t e the re as o n ab len es s o f c o u n se l’ s p er fo rm an ce ‘fro m co u n se l’ s p er sp ec ti v e a t th e tim e.’” C h a n d le r , 2 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 5 - 1 6 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ B ]e c au s e c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t is p r e s u m e d r e a s o n ab le , f

o rap e titio n e rto s h o w th a t th e c o n d u c t w a s u n r e a s o n ab le , a pe t i t i one rm us te s t abl i s h tha tno c om pe t e ntc ouns e l w oul d ha ve t a ke n the a c t i on tha thi s c ouns e l di d t a ke . ” I d. a t1315. T he prem i se of D ub ose’ s argum ent s on app ea l i s thatcoun se l prov i des c o n s titu tio n a llyin e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e w h e n h e o rs h e f a ils to r e a s o n ab lya n tic ip a te a nd a r gue f

a vor abl e tr e nds i n c ons t i tut i ona l l a w , e ve n i f thos e tr e nds a r e notthe l aw atthatt i m e. H e c on t ends that , i n these ci rc um st ance s, the st andard for w hether the r e i s c aus e f

orpr oc e dur a l de f

aul ts e tf orth i n E ngl e v. I s s a c , 456 U . S . 107, 134, 12 0 S . C t . 15 58 , 15 75 , 71 L . E d. 2d 78 3 (19 82 ) ( “ W here the basi s of aconst i tut i on al cl ai m i s avai l abl e, and o ther defe nse c ou nsel have perce i ved and l i t i gat ed that4

cl ai m , the dem ands of com i ty and fi nal i ty c ou nsel agai nstl abel i ng al l eged u n aw aren ess o f th e o b

j ect i o n as cau se fo r a p ro ced u ral d efau l t . ”), sh o u l d al so go vern the det erm i nat i on of defi ci entperf orm ance i n an i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance c l a i m. W e h av e p rev i o u sl y rej ect ed th e arg u m en tth at , i f th ere d o es n o tex i stcau se for the fa i l ure t o rai se a c l ai m i n the cont extof procedural defaul t , such a f ai l ure c ons t i tut e s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . P i tt s v. C ook, 923 F . 2d 1568, 1571- 74 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . “ T he pr ope rm e a s ur e of a tt orne ype r f

orm a nc e r e m a i ns s i mp l y r e a s o n ab l e n e s s u n d e rp r e v a i l i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l n o rms . ” Str i c k l a n d , 4 6 6 U . S. a t688, 104 S . C t . a t2065. “ W e ha ve he l d m a nyt i m e s tha t‘ [ r ] e a s onabl ye f f e c t i ve re pres ent at i on cann otand d oes noti ncl ud e are qu i re m entt o m ake argum ent s bas ed on pr e di c t i ons of

how the l a w m a yde ve l op. ’ ” S pa z i a no v. S i ngl e t a ry , 36 F . 3d 1028, 1039 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . “ T o be e f f e c tiv e w ith in th e b o u n d s s e t b yS tr ic k la n d , a n a tto rn e yn e e d n o t a n tic ip a te changes i n the l aw . S i m i l ar l y, coun se l need no tpu rs ue const i tut i on al cl ai m s w hi ch he r e a s onabl y be l i e ve s t o be of que s t i onabl e m e r i t . ” J a c ks on v. H e rr i ng, 42 F . 3d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A tthe t i m e of

D ubos e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng on N ove m be r29, 2001, ourc ontr ol l i ng prec edenthel d thatA pp re nd i di d n otappl y t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, bu tw as5

on l y app l i cabl e t o fac t s thati ncre as e ase nt ence abov e the appl i cabl e s t atut ory m axi m um . U ni t ed S t at es v. S anchez, 26 9 F . 3d 12 50 , 12 62 -63 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( en b a n c ) , ab r o g a tio n r e c o g n iz e d b y U n ite d S ta te s v . D u n c a n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir.), cer t. d en ied , 1 2 6 S .C t. 4 3 2 (2 0 0 5 ). W e h o ldth at D u b o se ’s trial co u n se l’ s fa i l ure t o adv ance an ar gu m entprem i se d o n the grou nd thatthe S up re m e C ou rt w ou l d app l y A pp re nd i t o the G ui del i nes does notconst i tut e i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of c ouns e l . S pa z i a no, 36 F . 3d a t1039; J a c ks on, 42 F . 3d a t1359. I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of D ubos e ’ s § 2255 m o t i o n i s AF F I RME D.