FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 14, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1250 6 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N os. 00-0805 5-CV -B-S & 97-00266 -CR- B-S MIC AH RUDISILL, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rth e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab ama

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 14, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N , and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: In199 8, f oll ow ing aj ur

y tr ia l, Mi cah R

udi sil l w as c onvi ct ed

of vari ous federa l crim es, including, as re levant here, conspiracy to com m it m oneyThis alleg ation was made in a Februar y 2001 amendment to Rudisill’s original § 2255 1 motion. In response to Rudisi ll’s proposed ame ndment, the Gover nment argued that it was untimely under A EDPA and that the ne w alleg ation did not relate ba ck to the timely filed orig inal m o t i o n . Inth e r ep o rtan d re co mm en d at i o no nR

u d i s i l l ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n , th e m agi s tra t e j u d ge conclude d, at least implicitly , that the amende d alleg ations were timely . The Gove rnment did not file an obje ction to the rec ommendation. The district cour t adopted the r ecommendation without expressly addre ssing the matter. The G overnme nt has rene wed its untimeliness argument on appea l, but we do not consider it bec ause it is outside the scope of the COA. 2 laundering, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. §§ 195 6(a)( 1)(A )(i), 1956 (h). H e w as se nte nc ed to se rv e 210 m onths i n pr iso n. O n di re ct appe al , w e af

fi rm ed his

“ co nvi ct ion s and s en te nc es in al l r es pe ct s. ” Unit ed S tate s v. Ru dis ill , 187 F
. 3d 1260 , 1262 (11th Cir. 1999). In 2000, Rudisil l m oved the dis trict court to vacate his conviction, under 28 U. S. C. § 225 5, alleging, a s relevant here, that his trial counsel rendered
co nst itutio na lly

ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e w he n he f ai le d to c ha lle nge Co unt

13 o f the indictm ent (conspiracy

to com m it m oney

laundering) on th e grounds th at it wa s dupl ic ito us o f oth er

c ount s inthe ind ic tm en t or , a lte rn at ive ly , that i t l ac ke d th e specificity

necessary

to charge an off

ense. Am agistrate j udge recom m ended that 1 Ru d i s i l l ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o nb e d i s m i s s edi ni t s en t i re ty. W i thre g ar dt o Ru d i s i l l ’s ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m

ba se d onhis c ouns el ’ s f

ai lur e to c ha lle nge Co unt 13 of the ind ic tm en t, the m ag istrate j udge , r el y ing on o ur de ci sio n inUnit ed

S tate s v. Rivera, 77 F.3d 1348, 1352 n.4 (11th Cir. 1996 ) (c iting form er ver sion o f Fe d. R. Cr im
. P ro . 12( b) , ( f) ), c onc lud ed a s f oll ow s: “ T his c la im

is w ai ve d be ca

use3

[R udi sil l] f ai le d to r ai se the iss ue be fo re tr ia l. ” W ith out r uli ng o n th e m er its of Ru dis ill ’ s in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e cl ai m , the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the m ag istrate j udge’s r ecom

m endation anddism issed Rudis ill’ s § 225 5 m otion
. Rudisill m oved the district court for a ce rtificate of appealability (CO A) on various is sues pe rt ai nin g to the c ourt’ s r uli ng. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t gr an t a CO Aon any issue. W e lik ew ise r ef

use d to gr an t a

CO Aon a ll but

one of the iss ue s R

udi sil l soug ht to raise on appeal. W e granted a C OAon the following is sue: Whether the district court err ed by finding th at [Rudisill’ s] claim that tr ia l c ouns el sho uld

have obj ec te d to the m one y launde ri ng c ount

of the ind ic tm en t w as w ai ve d be ca use [ Ru dis ill ] f

ai le d to r ai se the iss ue be fo re tr ia l? T hat i s th e sol e iss ue c ur

re ntl y be fo re us. S ee Murr ay

v. Unit ed

S tate s, 145 F
. 3d 1250 -51 (11th Cir. 1998) (per c uriam) (lim iting appellate j urisdictio n in “ an appeal br ough t by

an un suc ce ssf

ul h ab ea s pe tit ion er ” to “ the iss ue s sp ec if ie d inthe CO A ”) ; se e al so D odd v. Unit ed S tate s, 365 F
. 3d 1 273, 128 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) (is su es be y on d t he sco pe of the COA are “ no t p ro pe rly revi ewedby thi s C ou rt” ). The m erits of Rudisill’s inef fective a ssistance claim

are not before us. A fter
re vie w , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in tr eatin g R

udi sil l’ s in ef

fe ct ive
as sis tanc e cl ai m

a s havin g be enw ai ve d.Stylisti c ame ndments were made to Rule 12 in 2002. The pr e-2002 ve rsion of Rule 12 2 that we r elied upon in Rivera w as in forc e at the time of Rudisil l’s trial in 1998. Othe r d e fe c ts i n th e ind ic tme nt— e .g ., tho se inv olv ingthe fa ilure of the ind ic tme nt t o 3 show jurisdiction or the fa ilure of the indictment to cha rg e an of fense—need not have bee n raised prior to trial, but instead “sha ll be noticed by the cour t at any time duringthe pende ncy of the proce eding s.” F ed. R. Crim. Pro. 12(b)(2) (pre- 2002 version). 4 Inf ind ing that R

udi sil l w ai ve d hi s in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e cl ai m , the
m ag istrate j udge ( an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt by a dopt ion ) re lie d up on o ur state m en t i n Ri ve ra that the appe llant i n th at c as e, who f

ai le d to m ak e a pr etri al obj ec tio n to the
co nst itutio na l va lid ity

of his ind ic tm en t, “ w ai ve d” his r igh t t o arg ue that i ssu e on dir ec t a ppe al
. R ive ra , 77 F
. 3d at 13 52 n
. 4. R ive ra did not inv olv e a cl ai m

of ineffec tive assistance of counsel. O ur wa iver determination in Rivera w as based on the int er

play be tw ee n F ed er al Ru le of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 12( b) (2 ), whic h, in its the n- curr en t f

orm , state d th at

obj ec tio ns “ba se d onde fe ct s inthe ind ic tm en t” 2 3

. . . “ m ust be raised prior to trial,” and Rule 12(f), which stated that the “ [f] ailure by aparty to ra ise
. . . obj ec tio ns . . . whic h m ust be m ad e pr ior

to tr ia l .
. . sha ll constitu te w aiver there of.” Fed. R. Crim . P ro. 12(b)( 2), ( f) ( pre-2002 version). In Rivera, because the appellant’ s challenge to the ind ictm ent was not j urisdictio nal
an d no t ba se d onthe ind ic tm en t’ s f ai lur e to c harg e anof

fe nse , w e obse rv ed

that, unde r Ru le 12( b) (2 ), the c ha lle nge ha d to be r ai se d be fo re tr ia l. 77 F. 3d at 13 52 n.4. And because the c hallenge was not raised before trial, we noted that, under5

Ru le 12( f) , the appe llant h ad w ai ve d th e ri ght

to pur sue the iss ue on a

ppe al
. I d. T he pr obl em

in thi s c as e, and the r ea son w hy w e fi nd i t w as e rr or

to hol d that Rudisil l’ s ineffec tive assistance claim wa s waived, stem s from

the district
co urt’ s f ai lur e to r ec ogni ze that R udi sil l, unl ike the appe llant i n R ive ra , is not attem pting to assert a direc t challenge to his in dictm ent. W hat he has instead alleged in his § 2 255 m otion is a Sixth Am endm ent claim attacking his trial counsel’s per form ance in not arguing, during th e pendency of the criminal pr oc ee din gs, that the ind ic tm en t w as de fe ct ive —i
. e. , that the m one y -l aunde ri ng co nspi ra cy

c ount w as e ith er

dup lic ito us o r fa ile d to c harg e anof fe nse . I t i s on e thi ng t o a sse rt , a ft er

the c ri m ina l pr oc ee din gs h av e co nc lud ed , that an in dic tm en t
w as in som e w ay

de fe ct ive ; i t i s so m ethin g a lto ge the r dif fe re nt t o a sse rt , in a § 22 55 p ro ce ed ing , that on e’ s c ouns el w as c onst itutio na lly de fi ci en t f

or f ai lin g to
m ak e suc h an arg um en t duri ng the pe nde nc y of the c ri m ina l pr oc ee din gs. T hose
ar e se parate and d ist inc t l eg al c la im s. I n th e fo rm er sit uatio n ( inv olv ing a subs tantive challenge to the ind ictm ent), Rule 12 places tim e lim its on when such
a cl ai m c anbe a sse rt ed

and p re sc ri be s w ai ve r as the c onse que nc e of f ai lin g to ab ide by tho se li m its
. I n th e latte r sit uatio n ( a co llate ra l c ha lle nge to the perform ance of one’ s counsel), Rule 12 has nothi ng to sayabout treating an ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m

a s w ai ve d. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r el ianc e onWe note that the Gover nment does not disagree with this conclusion. 4 6 Ri ve ra w as m isp la ce d be ca

use Ru le 12( f) ’ s w ai ve r pr ovi sio n si m ply doe s no t ap pl y to th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m all eg edin Ru di si ll ’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n. R u d i s i l l , th e r e f

o r e , h a s n o tw a i v e dh i s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e c l a i m. 4 N or is Ru dis ill ’ s in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e cl ai m

pr oc ed ur al ly de fa ult ed a s a co nse que nc e of

his havin g f

ai le d to a sse rt

it in his dir ec t a

ppe al
. S ee Ma ssaro v. United States, 538 U.S . 500, 509, 123 S. Ct. 1690 , 1696 (2003) (“ W e [] hold th at fa ilure to ra ise an in ef

fe ct ive -a ssi stanc e- of

-c ouns el c la im

on d ir ec t a

ppe al doe s no t bar the claim

from being brou ght in a later , a ppropriate proceeding und er § 2 25 5” ). For the fore goin g reasons, w e conclude that Rudisil l’ s ineffec tive assistance cl ai m is not barr ed by w ai ve r or

pr oc ed ur al de fa ult
. W e thu s va cate the j udgm en t of the district court and rem and for further proceedings the ineffective assistance cl ai m ad dre s s edi nth i s o p i n i o n . We e x p re s s n o v i ew o nth e mer i t s o f R u d i s i l l ’s cl ai m . I nst ea d, w e le av e to the dis tr ic t c ourt the ta sk o f ad dr es sin g th e m er its in the first instance. VACATED AND REMANDED.