A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S e p t e m b e r13,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT BI LL YA NEZ,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 2133 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) C H R I ST I N E V A L L E J O S, W ar den,

D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 11 80 RB / RL P)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C irc u it Judg es. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed B i l l Y anez ’ s appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a f ter h is c o n v ictio n a n d u n su c c e ss f u l ap p e a l in N ew M exi co s t at e court . H e now s eeks fr om t hi s courta ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility (C O A ), s ee 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ( 1 ) ( r e q u i r i n g a CO A t o appea l t he-2-

d e n i a l o f

a m o t i o n u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 ) , t o a p p e a l th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s ru l i n g . W e d e n y a C O A a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. M r. Y a n e z liv e d w ith h is g irlfr ien d , B re n d a D ill o n , w h o se m o th e r, D e lla D i l l on, offe r ed hers ervi ces t o l aw enfor cementt o s etup a drug buyfr om M r . Y anez . A n offi cerpr ovi ded D el l a w i th $600 i n cas h and pl ace d a t ape r ecor deri n herpur s e. She w entt o M r . Y anez ’ s hous e and t ol d hi m t hats he w ant ed t o buyan ounce of coc ai ne; he t ol d hert o r eturn i n one hour . W hen s he di d ( w hi l e underpol i ce s ur vei l l ance ) , M r . Y anez came outt o hercarand pl ace d a ci gar ett e pac k on the das h; s he then gave hi m t he $600. T he pac k cont ai ned an ounce of

coca i ne. M r. Y a n e z w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e. H e w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed b ytw o y e a rs o n p a ro le , w ith th e la s t 1 8 m o n th s o f th e s e n te n c e b e in g s u s p e n d e d . M r. Y a n e z a p p e a led to th e N e w M e x ico C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, c laim in g six e rro rs: ( 1) i ns uffi ci encyof the evi dence ; ( 2) i m pr operi m peac hm entof M r . Y anez w i t h a p rio r c o n v ictio n ; (3 ) fa ilu re to in stru c t o n o bjec tiv e e n tra p m e n t; (4 ) fa ilu re o f h is couns el ( a) t o advi s e hi m thathe di d nothave t o t es t i fy , ( b) t o r eques tan entr apmenti ns truct i on, and ( c) t o obj ectt o the amendm entof the i ndi ctm ent ; ( 5) fa ilu re o f

th e trial ju d g e to re c u se h e rse lf; an d (6 ) th e trial c o u rt’s c h a n g in g h is s ent ence aft eri tw as or al l yannounce d, butbefor e i tw as i s s ued i n w r i t i ng. T he N ew M exi co C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed on al l cl ai m s on J une 29, 2005. T he N ew-3-

M exi co Supr eme C our tdeni ed M r . Y anez ’ s pet i t i on forcert i or ar i on A ugus t11, 2005. H e then fi l ed an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co on N ovember8, 2005, rai si ng the sam e si x clai m s. I n a r eportand r ecomm endat i on on the appl i cat i on, a magi s tr at e j udge concl uded thatt hr ee of M r . Y anez ’ s cl ai m s ( thatthe tr i al j udge fa i l ed t o i ns truct o n o bjec tiv e e n tra p m e n t, sh o u ld h a v e re c u se d h e rse lf fo r b ias , an d e rro n e o u sly al l ow ed i m peac hm enton the bas i s of a pr i orconvi ct i on) conce rned onl ys t at e l aw a n d w e re n o t p ro p e rl yp a rt o f th e h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n . See E st el l e v. McG uir e , 502 U .S . 6 2 , 6 7 -6 8 (1 9 9 1 ) (“ [ I]t is n o t th e p ro v in c e o f a fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rt to r eexa m i ne s t at e- courtdet erm i nat i ons on s t at e- l aw ques t i ons . I n conduct i ng habea s r evi ew , a fe der al courti s l i m i t ed t o deci di ng w hethera convi ct i on vi ol at ed the C ons t i tut i on, l aw s , ort r eat i es of the U ni t ed St at es . ”) . T he j udge dec i ded that the N ew M exi co C our tof A ppeal s ’ di s pos i t i on of the i ns uffi ci ent - evi dence and i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance i s s ues w er e nei thercontr aryt o, nori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw , and r ecomm ended thatthe cl ai m s be di s m i s s ed. T he j udge negl ect ed, how ever , t o cons i derw hether M r . Y anez ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen hi s s ent ence w as change d aft erbei ng or al l yannounce d. T he di s tr i ctcour tadopt ed the r eportand re c o m m e n d a tio n in f

u ll a n d d is m is s e d th e a p p lic a tio n o n A p ri l 7 , 2 0 0 6 .-4-

M r . Y anez fi l ed a not i ce of appea l ; and the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed a CO A on M ay5, 2006. 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 how i ng of the d en ial o f a co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). T h is st an d ard re q u ire s “ a d e m o n stra tio n th a t . . . inc lu d e s s h o w in g th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 48 4 (200 0) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). In ot her w ords, t he ap pli cant m ust s how thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w as ei ther “deba t abl e orw r ong. ” Id . T h e An t i t e r r o r i s m a n d E ffe c t i v e De a th P e n a l tyAc to f 1 9 9 6 ( AE DP A) p ro v id e s th a t w h e n a c la im h a s b e e n a dju d ic a te d o n th e m e ri ts in s ta te c o u rt , a fede r al courtw i l l gr anthabea s r el i ef onl yw hen the appl i cantes t abl i s hes t hatt he s t at e courtdeci s i on w as “contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our tof the U n ited S tate s,” o r “ w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e fa c ts in l i g h to f th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e S t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ), (2). U n d er the “c o n tr aryto” c laus e, w e g ran t r eli ef o n lyif th e state c o u rt arrives at a c o n clus ion o p p o sit e to th at reac h ed b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt o n a q u e stio n o f

law o r if

th e sta te c o u rt d e c id e s a c a se d iffe re n tly-5-

th a n th e [ S u p re m e ] C o u rt h a s o n a se t o f m a ter iallyin d istin g u ish a b le fac t s . U nderthe “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” cl aus e, r el i ef i s pr ovi ded o n lyif th e sta te c o u rt id e n tifie s th e c o rre c t g o v e rn in g leg a l p rin c ip le fr om the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons butunr eas onabl yappl i es that pr i nci pl e t o the fa ct s of the pr i s oner ’ s cas e. T hus w e maynoti s s ue a habea s w r i ts i m pl ybeca us e w e conc l ude i n ouri ndepende ntj udgm ent thatt he r el evants t at e- courtdeci s i on appl i ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fede ral l aw err on eou sl yor i nco rr ect l y . R at her, that appl i cat i on m ust a ls o b e u n re a s o n a b le . G i ps on v. Jor dan , 376 F. 3d 1193, 1196 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “A E D PA ’ s defe r ent i al tr eatm entof s t at e courtdeci s i ons m us tbe i ncorpor at ed i nt o ourcons i der at i on of a ha beas pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tfor C O A . ” D ocki ns v. Hi nes , 3 7 4 F . 3 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). O n ap p ea l M r. Y an ez raises a n u m b er o f c lai m s. A ll b u t on e o f th em are new . H e cont ends thatthe s t at e tr i al cour ts houl d nothave a l l ow ed hi m t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o an arr ai gnm ent ; t hata tr i al w i tnes s comm i t t ed per j ur y ; and thathe s houl d have r ece i ved pr obat i on t i m e w hi l e aw ai t i ng s ur gery . B eca us e M r . Y anez d id n o t r a is e th e s e c la im s in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , h e h a s w a iv e d th e m . See Parkerv. Sc o tt , 3 9 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he r emai ni ng cl ai m s r el at e t o i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . “I n or der to w arran t hab ea s reli ef, p eti ti o n er m u st establish b o th tha t his att o rne y ’s r epr es ent at i on w as defi ci entand thathe w as pr ej udi ced bycouns el ' s defi ci ent per form ance . ” P i cke ns v. G i bs on , 206 F. 3d 988, 1001 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . “I n or der t o est abli sh prej ud i ce res ult i ng from defici ent r epresent at i on , peti t i on er m ust s how thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onalW e al s o not e thatM r . Y anez does notr ai s e on appe al t he cl ai m t hatt he 1 tr i al courti m pr oper l ym odi fi ed hi s s ent ence aft eri tw as or al l yannounce d but befor e i tw as i s s ued i n w r i t i ng. -6- err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Id. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n hi s pl eadi ngs i n thi s cour t , M r . Y anez cont ends that hi s couns el ( 1) had a c onfl i ctof i nt er es tbeca us e he s ai d ats ent enci ng thathe w oul d notr i de i n a ca rw i th M r . Y anez ; ( 2) w r ongful l yadvi s ed M r . Y anez t o t ake the s t and i n hi s ow n defe ns e; (3) fai l ed to cal l a keyw i tness; (4 ) fa iled to chal l enge the authent i ci tyof the t ape r ecor di ng of the drug tr ans act i on; ( 5) fai l ed to c h a llen g e g o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss e s fo r c o m m itt in g p e rju ry ; (6 ) in a d e q u a tely pr epar ed fortr i al ; ( 7) fai l ed t o obj ectaft erobs ervi ng D el l a and Bre nda D i l l on talk in g w ith e a c h o th e r in th e h a llw a yd u rin g a trial re c e ss ; (8 ) im p ro p e rly a d v ise d h im to w a iv e h is rig h t to a n a rra ig n m e n t; an d (9 ) fa iled to m o v e to di s m i s s the ca s e af

t erM r . Y anez w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o an arr ai gnm ent . A l though M r. Y a n e z ra ise d in e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e c laim s in th e d istric t co u rt, th e o n ly s peci fi c cl ai m al s o r ai s ed on appe al i s t hathi s couns el fai l ed t o advi s e hi m t hathe w as notr equi r ed t o t es t i fyi n hi s ow n defe ns e. T hos e notr ai s ed on appe al have b e e n a b a n d o n e d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A bdenbi , 3 6 1 F . 3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A n d th o s e n o t r a is e d b e lo w h a v e b e e n w a iv e d . See P arker , 394 F. 3d at

1 1307. A s forthe r emai ni ng i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance cl ai m , M r . Y anez has not i ndi cat ed how hi s nott es t i fy i ng w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l.-7-

T he s tr ai ght forw ar d evi dence agai ns thi m w as compel l i ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtw as un do ub t edlycorr ecti n h oldi ng that the N ew M exico C ou rtof A pp eal s’ d e ter m in a tio n th a t M r. Y a n e z h a d fa iled to sh o w a n yp reju d ice re su lti n g f ro m h is tes tim o n yw a s n e ith e r c o n tra ryto n o r a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f c lea rly e s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. W e t h e r e fo r e d e n ya COA o n th i s c l a i m. W e D E N Y a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge