F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OB E R T C HA R L E S T OWE R Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. CHARLE S R YA N; CHARLE S G O L D S M I T H , W a r d e n , A r iz o n aS ta te Pr i s o n Ce n tr a l Co mp l e s - Fl o r e n c e ; TERRY L . G O D D A R D , A ri zona S t at e A tt orney G e ne r a l ; D O R A B . S C H R I R O , D i r e c t orof th e A ri zo n a D ep artm en to f C o rrect i o n s, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 15071 D. C . No . 2 : 0 3 - c v - 0 0 8 2 6 - R OS OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona R os l y n O . S i l ve r , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 27, 2012

P hoe ni x, A r i z ona F i l ed B e f o r e : M a ry M . S c h r o e d e r , R a y m o n d C . F is h e ra n d N . R a n d y S m ith , C ir c u it Ju d g es. P E R C U R I A M: 

# FI LED FEB 27 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

R o b e r t T o w e ry w a s c o n v ic te d o f m u r d e ra n d s e n te n c e d to d e a th in 1 9 9 2 . A f t e rpur s ui ng di r e c tr e vi e w a nd s e e ki ng pos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f i n s t a t e c our t , he fi l ed a pro se habeas pet i t i on i n federa l di stri ctcourt . T he di stri ctcourtappo i nt ed c ouns e l , w ho f

i l e d a n a m e nde d f

e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on r a i s i ng e i ghts ubs t a nt i ve cl ai m s of c on st i tut i on al error a s w el l as nu m er ou s di st i nctal l egat i on s of c ou nsel i neff ec t i veness . C ou nsel di d n ot , ho w ever , i ncl ud e T ow ery’ s f ul l y e xh aust ed E ddi ngs - T

e nnar d c la im in th e a m e n d e d p e titio n . Se e E dd i n gs v . Okla h o ma , 455 U .S . 1 0 4 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; T

enna rd v. D re tke , 54 2 U . S . 27 4 (20 04 ). T he di stri ctcourt d e n ie d th e p e titio n , a n d w e a f f irm e d . See T

o w ery v. Sch ri ro ( T

ow er y I I ) , 641 F . 3d 3 0 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 13 2 S . C t . 15 9 (20 11 ). T ow e ry s ubs e que nt l y f

i l e d am ot i on f

orr e l i e f f r om j udgm e nts e e ki ng the op po rtun i ty t o l i t i gat e the E dd i n gs-T en n a rd i ss ue as a new cl ai m . H e a rgued that he s houl d be pe rm i tt e d t o pur s ue tha tc l a i m , notw i ths t a ndi ng the s t a tut ory ba ron s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve habe a s pe t i t i ons , be c a us e hi s c ouns e l ha d aba ndone d hi m by fa i l i ng t o p re se ntthe cl ai m i n h i s a m ended p et i t i on . H e propo se d a new rul e und er w hi c h aba ndonm e ntby c ouns e l w oul d s e rve a s a n e qui t abl e e xc e pt i on t o the ba ron s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve pe t i t i ons . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on. W e a f f i rm . W e ne e d notde c i de w he the raba ndonm e ntby c ouns e l c a n s e rve a s a n e xc e pt i on t o the ba ron s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve pe t i t i ons be c a us e , l i ke the3

di s tr i c tc our t , w e c onc l ude tha tT ow e ry w a s notaba ndone d. C ouns e l di d not e n g a g e in “e g r e g io u s ” p r o f e s s io n a l m is c o n d u c t, H

ol land v . Flor i da , 1 3 0 S . C t. 2549, 2563- 64 ( 2010) , orl e a ve T ow e ry “ w i thouta ny f unc t i oni ng a tt orne y of re cord, ” M

aple s v . T

hom as , 132 S . C t . 912, 927 ( 2012) . A c c or di ngl y , w e ne e d not d e c id e w h e th e rT o w e ry ’s a tto rn e y w a s n e g lig e n t in f a ilin g to r a is e ac o lo r ab le E dd i n gs-T

en n a rd c l a i m . W e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on b y d e n y in g T o w e ry ’s m o tio n . I . B ACKGROUN D T ow ery w as conv i ct ed of fi rs t -degree m urder, arm ed robb ery, fi rs t -degree b u r g la ry , k id n ap p in g , th e f t a n d a tte m p te d th e f

t in 1 9 9 2 . See T

ow er y I I, 64 1 F . 3d at 3 0 3 . H e w a s s e n te n c e d to d e a th . Se e i d. H i s e xecut i on i s s chedul ed t o t ake pl ac e on M a r c h 8, 2012. A . S en te n ci n g C ou rt A t s e n te n c in g , T o w e ry p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e , th r o u g h th e te s tim o n y o f h is si st ers, th ath i s m o th er w as p h ysi cal l y an d em o t i o n al l y ab u si v e w h en h e w as a c h ild . T h e s e n te n c in g c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t T o w e ry ’s d if f ic u lt c h ild h o o d w a s n o t a m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e b e c a u s e T o w e ry c o u ld n o t s h o w th a t it h a d a n e f f e c t o n h is b e h a v io rth a t w a s b e y o n d h is c o n tr o l o rr o s e to th e le v e l o f am e n ta l im p a irm e n t:4 I ha ve he a r d a nd c ons i de r e d the e vi de nc e c onc e rni ng the defendant ’ s f

am i l y bac kg roun d, the m an n er i n w hi ch M r . T ow e ry w a s rai sed b yhi s m othe r . A nd c e r t a i nl y no on e w ou l d w i sh such a cond i t i on up on anyone. H o w ever , ad if f ic u lt f a m ily b a c k g r o u n d , in a n d o f its e lf , is n o t a m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e . I f i t w e r e , ne a r l y e ve ry de f e nda nt c oul d poi ntt o s om e c i r c um s t a nc e i n hi s or he rba c kgr ound tha tw oul d c a l l f

ors om e m i t i ga t i on. A di f f i c ul t f a m i l y ba c kgr ound i s ar e l e va ntm i t i ga t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e , if

ad e f e n d a n t c a n s h o w th a t s o m e th in g in tha tba c kgr ound ha d a n [ e ] f f e c tori m pa c ton hi s be ha vi or tha tw a s be y ond the de f e nda nt ’ s c ontr ol . I do notbe l i e ve the r e w a s a ny thi ng i n t hi s c a s e tha tw a s be y ond the d e f e n d a n t’s c o n tr o l. A l tho ug h h e m i gh tno thave rece i ved the i nt erpl ay a nd nur tu ri n g t ha the w oul d ha ve l i ke d t o ha ve ha d a nd n eed ed fro m h i s m o th er, I h av e t o l o o k at h i s tw o si b l i n g s, w ho e vi de nc e nothi ng c onc e rni ng drug us e , a nd ha ve m a na ge d t o gr ow up be i ng r e l a t i ve l y s t abl e pe opl e i n the co m m u n i ty, an d co n tri b u t i n g m em b ers o f so ci ety. T he r e f or e , the f

a c ttha tthe d ef

e nda ntha d a dy s f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th h i s mo th e r , a n d b e i ng s ubj e c tt o e m ot i on al abus e , i s notam i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e , be c a us e i ta m ount s t o am e r e c ha r a c t e ror pe r s ona l – pe r s ona l i ty di s or de r , a nd doe s not r i se t o t he le v e l o f am e n ta l im p a irm e n t. T h e s e n te n c in g c o u r t th e n w e ig h e d th e m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t it foun d t o exi stagai nstthe aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s a nd i m po se d a death sent ence :

T h e m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t I h a v e f o u n d to e xi s ttha tm e r i tw e i ghta nd c ons i de r a t i on a r e the im p a irm e n t o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s c ap a c ity to c o n f o rm h is c o n d u c t to th e la w d u e to d ru g u s e , w h ic h I h a v e g iv e n little w e ig h t, a n d th e s e n te n c e g iv e n to h is c o - d e f e n d a n t, to w h ic h I h a v e g iv e n g r e a t w e ig h t.5 I h av e al so co n si d ered th e d efen d an t ’ s fam ily ba c kgr ound, the m a nne ri n w hi c h he w a s r ai se d. I ha ve c ons i de r e d M r . T ow e ry ’ s c ha r a c t e r , pr ope ns i t i e s , r e c or d, a n d c i r c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e o f f e n s e w h ic h w o u ld c o n s titu te m i t i ga t i on. I h a v e c o n s id e r e d w h e th e ro rn o t th is c a s e p r e s e n ts c i r c um s t a nc e s tha ta r e s o s hoc ki ng orr e pug n an t , tha tthe m u rd er st ands ou tabov e the no rm of fi rs tdegree mu rder , and w hether the backgrou nd of the defe nd antse t s hi m apart fr om the usual m urderer . I n c ons i de r i ng the e xi s t e nc e of the thr e e a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s , a nd ba l a nc i ng the m a ga i ns tth e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s , I f

i nd the m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h do ex i stare n o tsi g n i fi can t l y su b st an t i al t o cal l fo r l en i en cy. I t is u n c le a rf

r o m th e tr a n s c r ip t w h e th e rth e s e n te n c in g c o u r t u ltim a te ly c ons i de r e d T ow e ry ’ s di f f i c ul tc hi l dhood i n i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e . O n the one ha nd, the c our te xpr e s s l y f

ound tha tT ow e ry ’ s c hi l dhood w a s notam i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e , a nd, c ons i s t e ntw i th tha tde t e rm i na t i on, the c our tdi d notm e nt i on T o w e ry ’s c h ild h o o d w h e n it lis te d th e m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s it f o u n d to e x is t. O n th e o th e rh a n d , th e c o u r t s a id th a t it “a ls o c o n s id e r e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s f

a m ily ba c kgr ound, the m a nne ri n w hi c h he w a s r a i s e d” a nd c ons i de r e d “ w he the rthe ba c kgr ound of

the de f e nda nts e t [ ] hi m apa r tf

r om the us ua l m ur de r e r , ” s ugge s t i ng th a t th e c o u r t m a y h a v e in c lu d e d th is e v id e n c e in th e s e n te n c in g c a lc u lu s a f te ra ll. B . A ri z on a S u p re m e C ou rt6

O n di r e c tappe a l , T ow e ry a r gue d tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our tvi ol a t e d L ocke t t v. O h io , 4 3 8 U .S . 5 8 6 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , E dd i n gs v . Okla h o ma , 455 U . S . 104 ( 1982) , a nd P en ry v . L y naugh , 4 9 2 U .S . 3 0 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , ab roga ted on other groun ds by A tki ns v. V ir g in ia , 536 U . S . 304 ( 2002) , w he n i t“ de t e rm i ne d tha tthe de f e nda ntha d t o s how th a t h is b a c k g r o u n d h a d a n [ e ]f f e c t o rim p a c t o n h is b e h a v io r , a n d s in c e h e d id n o t, re j ec t ed thatevi dence as a m i t i gat i ng fa ct or. ” H e a rgued thatthe se nt enci ng court vi ol a t e d E ddi ngs ’ fund am ent al pri nci pl e that“ there need no tbe a nexus betw ee n m itig a tin g e v id e n c e s u c h a s c h ild ab u s e w ith th e o f f e n s e .” T h e A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u r t r e je c te d T o w e ry ’s a r g u m e n t. See Stat e v . T o w ery ( T ow er y I ), 92 0 P . 2d 29 0, 31 0-11 (A ri z. 19 96 ). T he courtconcl ud ed that the s e nt e nc i ng c our tha d pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d the abs e nc e of ac a us a l ne xus be tw e e n T ow e ry ’ s di f

f i c ul tc hi l dhood a nd the c r i m e onl y a s am e a ns of w e i ghi ng th e e v i d e n c e , n o ta s am e a n s o f d i s c o u n t i n g i ta s am a tt e ro f l a w: W e i nd ependent l y w ei gh the m i t i gat i ng evi dence agai nst the aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s t o d et erm i ne w hether le n ie n c y is c a lle d f

o r . . . . T h e trial ju d g e c o n sid er ed ev id en ce o f D ef en d an t’ s abus i ve fam i l y ba c kgr ound a nd di d notf i nd m i t i ga t i ng va l ue i n i t . C i t i ng a l i ne of S upr e m e C our tc a s e s r e qui r i ng c our t s t o c ons i de rf

a m i l y hi s t ory f

or i nde pe nde ntm i t i ga t i ng w ei g h t , D efen d a nt c a l l s t he j udge ’ s fi ndi ng un const i tut i on al . A l tho ug h the j ud ge re j ec t ed the evi dence a s am i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or be c a us e he f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h ane xus7 be tw e e n hi s fam i l y ba c kgr ound a nd hi s c r i m e , D e f e nda nt a r g u e s th a tth e j u d g e v i o l a t e d th e l a w. D ef endantm is construes the S up re m e C ou rtca se s c ul m i na t i ng i n P e nr

y v . L y naugh , 4 9 2 U .S . 3 0 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T hey hol d o nl y that“ a s ent ence r m ayno tbe precl ud ed f r om c ons i de r i ng, a nd m a y notr e f us e t o co ns i de r , a ny rel ev an tm i t i g at i n g ev i d en ce o ffered b y th e d efen d an t a s a basi s f or a s ent ence l es s th an d ea th. ” I d. a t318. H a vi ng c ons i de r e d f

a m i l y ba c kgr ound dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e , the s e nt e nc e rm us tgi ve the e vi de nc e s uc h w e i ghttha tthe s e nt e nc e r e f

l e c t s a“ r e a s one d m or a l r e s pons e” t o the e v id e n c e . I

d. at3 1 9 . T h e s en t en cer th erefo re m u st co n s i de rthe de f

e nda nt ’ s upbr i ngi ng i f

pr of f e r e d buti s not r e qui r e d t o gi ve i ts i gni f i c a ntm i t i ga t i ng w e i g h t . H ow m uch w ei gh tshou l d b e gi ven p roff er ed m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors i s am a tt e rw i thi n t h e s ound di s c r e t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng j ud ge. W e h a v e h e ld th a t ad if f i c u l t f a m ily b a c k g r o u n d is nota l w a y s e nt i t l e d t o great w e i ghta s am i t i ga t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e . Stat e v . W al lace , 160 A r i z . 424, 426- 27, 773 P .2 d 9 8 3 , 9 8 5 - 8 6 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( “A d if f ic u lt f a m ily b a c k g r o u n d is a r e l e va nt m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e i f ade f e nda ntc a n s how that s o m eth i ng i n thatbackgrou nd had an effe ctor i m pact on hi s behavi or that w as beyond the defendant ’ s c on trol . ”) , ce rt. deni ed , 49 4 U . S . 10 47 (1 9 90 ). W e have s i nce re af fi rm ed thatfa m i l y b ac k grou nd m aybe a s ub st ant i al mi t i g a t i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e w h e n i t i s s h o w n t o h a ve s o me c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n s e - r e la te d c o n d u c t. D e f e n d a n t h a s f

a ile d to c o n n e c t h is f a m ily backgrou nd t o h i s c ri m i nal cond uct . D ef endant ’ s s i st er s te s tif ie d a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g th a t h e w a s as m a ll c h ild w i th d ys l exi a a nd a bed-w ett ing p robl em and thathe w as phy s i c a l l y a nd m e nt a l l y abus e d by hi s ove rw e i ghta nd di abet i c m other. O ne si st erre l at ed thathi s m other f orce d h im to k n e e l in ab o x o f r ic e w h e n h e c o m p la in e d t h a t h is le g h u r t a f

te r f a llin g f r o m a w a g o n , a n d th a t s h e g a g g e d h im w i th a sock an d b ou nd hi s hands i n the back of the car8 w hi l e on af

a mi l y tr i p. The s e e ve nt s , ho w e ve r , oc c urr ed w he n D e f

e nd an tw a s y oung, y e a r s be f or e he r obbe d a nd m ur de r e d a tthe a ge of 27. T hey d o notpr ove al os s of i m pul s e c ontr ol o r ex p l ai n w ha tc a us e d hi m t o ki l l . T he tr i a l j udge c ons i de r e d thi s ba c kgr ound a nd ga ve i t l i t t l e or n o m itig a tin g v a lu e . W e d o n o t d is a g r e e . . . . W e ha ve e xa m i ne d the reco rd f orm i t i ga t i ng ci rc um st ance s a n d fi nd the ra ther s pars e e vi dence i ns uf f i c i e ntt o ove r c om e t h e w e i ghtof the a ggr a va t i ng ci rc um st ance s. W e there fore af fi rm the death sent ence . T ow er y I, 92 0 P . 2d at31 0-11 (f oo tno t es and som e c i t at i on s om i tt ed). C . F e d e r alH ab e as P r oc e e d i n gs F o llo w in g T o w e ry ’s u n s u c c e s s f u l ap p e a l to th e A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u r t, D ani el M ay nard w as appo i nt ed t o repre se ntT ow ery i n st at e post conv i ct i on re l i ef pr oc e e di ngs . I n 2003, f ol l ow i ng the de ni a l of

s t a t e pos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f , the fe dera l di stri ctcourtappo i nt ed M ay nard t o repres entT ow ery i n h i s f eder al habeas proceedi ng s. T he appo i ntm entorder provi ded for the fi l i ng of an am ended federa l h ab e a s p e titio n , a n d s a id th a t “[ t]h e A m e n d e d P e titio n s h a ll in c lu d e a n d s e t f o r th a ll k n o w n c la im s o f

c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o ro rd e p r iv a tio n e n titlin g P e titio n e rto f e de r a l habe a s r e l i e f

, ” c i t i ng R ul e 2( c ) of

the R ul e s G ove rni ng § 2254 C a s e s , 28 f ol l . U . S . C . § 2254. M a y na r d f i l e d a n a m e nde d pe t i t i on r a i s i ng e i ghtc l a i m s a nd n u m ero u s su b -cl ai m s, b u tn o tT o w ery’ s E dd i n gs-T en n a rd cl ai m . T he di stri ctcourt9

d e n ie d th e p e titio n , a n d w e a f f irm e d . See T

ow er y I I, 64 1 F . 3d 30 0 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), ce rt. deni ed , 13 2 S . C t . 15 9 (20 11 ). D . R u l e 60( b ) ( 6) M ot i on T ow ery s ub se qu ent l y f

i l ed a m ot i on for r el i ef

fr om j ud gm entun der F eder al R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ced u re 6 0 (b )(6 ), ask i n g th e d i stri ctco u rtreo p en h i s h ab eas case an d ad j u d i cat e h i s E dd i n gs-T

en n a rd cl ai m on the m er i t s. T ow ery a rgued thatthere w er e groun ds t o rai se thi s new cl ai m i n a R ul e 60 m ot i on , because M ay nard had aba ndone d hi m by f

a i l i ng t o r a i s e the c l a i m e a r l i e r . H e a r gue d tha taba ndonm e nt w a s ap r o p e rb a s is f

o rr e lie f u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , s e e L a l v . C a lifo r n ia , 610 F . 3d 5 1 8 , 5 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ; Cm t y . D e ntal

Se r vs . v . T

ani , 2 8 2 F .3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 8 - 7 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2002) , a s w e l l a s ape r s ua s i ve r e a s on t o a voi d the s t a tut ory ba ron s e c ond or su ccessi v e h ab eas p et i t i o n s. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on, c i t i ng G onz alezv . Cr os by , 5 4 5 U . S. 524 ( 2005) , f

orthe pr opos i t i on tha t“ R ul e 60( b) m a y notbe us e d t o a voi d the p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s ts e c o n d o rs u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n s s e tf o r th i n 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) .” O r d e rD e n . M o t. R e lie f J ., J a n . 9 , 2 0 1 2 , a t 2 ; se e G on zalez , 54 5 U . S . at 5 3 1 (“U sin g R u le 6 0 (b ) to p re se n t n ew claim s f o r r elief f

ro m a s tate co u rt’s j udgm e ntof

c onvi c t i on – e ve n c l a i m s c ouc he d i n the l a ngua ge of atrue R ul e 60( b) m o t i o n –ci rcu m v en t s A E D P A ’ s req u i rem en tth ata n ew cl ai m b e d i sm i ssed u n l essA E D P A r e f e r s t o 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 ty A c tof 1 1996, P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t a t . 1214. 10 i tre l i es on ei ther anew rul e of c on st i tut i on al l aw or new l y di sc ov er ed fa ct s. ”) . 1 A c c o r d in g to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, G o n za lez b a rr e d To w e ry ’ s c l a i m:

I n G on zalez , th e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t a n ap p r o p r ia te R ul e 60(b) m ot i on “ att ac ks, no tthe subst ance of the fe dera l court ’ s r es ol ut i on of a cl ai m on the m er i t s, bu tsom e def ec t i n the i n t eg ri t y of

the f e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ngs . ” T he C our ts pe c i f

i c a l l y not e d th a t“ a n a tt a c k ba s e d on the m o v a n t’s o w n c o n d u c t, o rh is h a b e a s c o u n s e l ’s o m is s i ons

. . . or di na r i l y doe s not go t o the i nt e gr i t y o f t he pr oc e e di ngs , buti n e f

f e c t a s ks f or a s e c ond c ha nc e t o ha ve th e m e r its d e te rm in e d f

a v o r ab ly .” . . . H e r e , P e t i t i one ri s s e e ki ng r e l i e f f r om the j udgm e nt d en yi ng hi s habea s pet i t i on base d o n h abea s c ou nsel ’s om i ss i on s. T here fore , un der G o n za le[z] , P e titio n e r ’s R u le 60( b) mo t i o n i s th e e q u i v a l e n to f as u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n, w hi c h thi s C our t c a nnot e nt e r t a i n abs e nta uthor i z a t i on f r om th e N in th C i r c u it C o u r t o f A p p e a ls . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 24 4(b)(3). O r d e rD e n . M o t . Re l i e f J . , J a n . 9 , 2 0 1 2 , a t3 - 4 ( f i r s ta l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) ( s o me c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( quot i ng G on zalez , 54 5 U . S . at53 2 & n. 5). T he di stri ctcourtadded that , even as sum i ng abando nm entby habeas coun se l c o u ld u n d e rm in e th e in te g r ity o f h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g s s u c h th a t T o w e ry ’s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o ti o n w o u ldn o t co n stitu te a s ec o n d o r s u cc es siv e p etit io n , M ay n ar d ’s c o n d u c t d id n o t c o n s titu te ab a n d o n m e n t:11 I n ac a s e de c i de d pr i ort o the rul i ng i n G on zalez , the S ec on d C i rc ui tdeni ed the pet i t i on er ’ s r eque st fo r r el i ef un der R ul e 60(b) based on h abea s c ou nsel ’ s per form ance . H arris v . U

ni ted Stat es , 367 F . 3 d 7 4 ( 2d C i r . 2004) . T he c our the l d tha tc ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o r a i s e c e r t a i n c l a i m s – a fa i l ure w hi ch coun se l hi m se l f w as w il l i ng t o sw ea r c o n s t i tu t e d i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e – d i d n o t u n d e rmi n e t he i nt egri ty o f the proceedi ng s bec ause coun se l ’ s per form ance di d n otre ac h a l evel of de ficiency thatcoul d b e dee m ed “ab a n d o n m e n t” o f

th e p e titio n e r ’s c a s e . I d. a t81- 82. T he c o u r t th e n e x p la in e d th a t t o p r o v e ab a n d o n m e n t, “a R u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o v a n t m u s t s h o w th a t h is la w y e r a g r e e d to pr os e c ut e ahabe a s pe t i t i one r ’ s c a s e , aba ndone d i t , a nd c o n s e q u e n tly d e p r iv e d th e p e titio n e ro f a n y o p p o r tu n ity to be heard atal l . ” I

d. a t81. P etit io n er h as n o t d em o n stra ted th at h ab ea s c o u n se l’ s perf orm ance desc ended t o a l evel w here P et i t i on erw as aba ndone d a nd de pr i ve d of a n oppor tu n i t y t o be he a r d. D es pi t e f

ai l i ng t o rai se a T

e nnar d c l a i m, M a y na rd pres ent ed ei gh t subst ant i ve cl ai m s of const i tut i on al error a s w el l as nu m er ou s di st i nct a ll egat i on s of c ou nsel i neff ec t i veness . H e al so pu rs ued a n i nn ocence theory bas ed on previ ou sl y unt es t ed cr i m e s ce ne evi dence. T he fa i l ure to r a is e ac la im , e v e n av iab le o n e , d o e s n o t a m o u n t to abando nm ent . O n thi s r ec ord, th e C ou rtfi nd s that M ay nard’ s f

ai l ure t o p re se n tthe T e nnar d c l a i m di d not c ons t i tut e aba ndonm e nt or de pr i ve P e t i t i one r o f any oppor tuni ty t o be he a r d c onc e rni ng the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . O r de rD e n. M ot . R e l i e f J . , J a n. 9, 2012, a t4- 5. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d T ow e ry ’ s m ot i on, a nd T ow e ry t i m e l y appe a l e d.

I I . J URISDI CTIO N AND S TAND ARD OF R EVIEW12

W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. “ W e r evi ew the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of a R ul e 60(b)(6) m ot i on for a n abu se of di sc re t i on . ” D elay v. G or don , 4 7 5 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; se e al so M artel la v. M

ari ne C oo ks & Ste w ar ds U

ni on , 448 F . 2d 729, 730 ( 9th C i r . 1971) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ 60( b) m ot i ons a r e a d d r e s s e d to th e s o u n d d is c r e tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.” ) . A c o u r t ab u s e s its di sc re t i on w hen i tfa i l s t o i dent i fyand app l y the corre ctl egal rul e t o the re l i ef r e q u e s te d , o rif

its ap p lic a tio n o f

th e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d w a s illo g ic a l, im p la u s ib le o rw ith o u t s u p p o r t in in f e r e n c e s th a t m a y b e d r a w n f r o m th e f a c ts in th e r e c o r d . Se e U

ni te d State s v . Hi nk

s on , 585 F . 3d 1247, 1262- 63 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( e n b a n c ) . I n a d d itio n , r e lie f u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) r e q u ir e s th e m o v in g p a r ty to m ake ashow i ng of “ extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s. ” G on zalez , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 5 3 5 .

“ S uc h c i r c um s t a nc e s w i l l r a r e l y oc c uri n the habe a s c ont e xt , ” a nd “ R ul e 60( b) proceedi ng s a re subj ec tt o o nl y l i m i t ed and d ef er ent i al appel l at e r evi ew . ” I d. I I I . D ISCUSSI ON T ow e ry a r gue s tha tthe r e w e r e e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s he r e be c a us e the s ta tu to ry b a ro n s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e h ab e a s p e titio n s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) , s h o u ld be r e a d t o i nc l ude a n e qui t abl e e xc e pt i on f ora tt orne y aba ndonm e nt . H e r e l i e s on tw o cas es construi ng abando nm entas a bas i s f or re l i ef fr om tw o o ther procedural ba r s gove rni ng f

e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ngs – H ol land v . Flor i da , 130 S . C t . 2549,13

2563- 64 ( 2010) , hol di ng tha thabe a s c ouns e l ’ s pr of e s s i ona l m i s c onduc t , i nc l udi ng abando nm ent , ca n “ am ou ntt o egregi ou s behavi or and crea t e a n extra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e tha tw a rr a nt s e qui t abl e t ol l i ng, ” a nd M aple s v . T

hom as , 1 3 2 S . C t. 912, 922- 27 ( 2012) , hol di ng tha ta tt orne y aba ndonm e ntc a n c ons t i tut e “ c a us e ” f or excusi ng a procedural defaul t . H e c on t ends thata s i m i l arexce pt i on shou l d b e r ea d i nt o the s e c ond- or - s uc c e s s i ve - pe t i t i on ba ra nd tha tM a y na r d aba ndone d hi m by f a i l i ng t o pr e s e nthi s f

ul l y e xha us t e d E dd i n gs-T en n a rd cl ai m i n h i s a m ended f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on. A c c or di ng t o T ow e ry , M a y na r d “ br e a c he d the duty of l oy a l ty a nd the r e by voi de d the a ge nc y r e l a t i ons hi p, the r e by c a us i ng the abando nm entthatM r. T ow ery c on t ends shou l d al l ow hi m t o rai se the T en n a rd i ss ue i n a m ot i on un der R ul e 60(b)(6) unfett er ed by the se cond -or- succ es si ve-B ef ore A E D P A i m po se d the st atut ory bar , a pet i t i on er ’ s abi l i ty t o fi l e a 2 se cond or succ es si ve pet i t i on w as go verned by the abuse of the w ri tdo ctri ne, un der w hi c h ac our tc oul d c ons i de ras e c ond ors ubs e que nthabe a s appl i c a t i on w he n the p e titio n e rs h o w e d c a u s e a n d p r e ju d ic e o raf

u n d a m e n ta l m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . See Mc C le s ke

y v . Zant , 49 9 U . S . 46 7, 49 3-94 (199 1). T he part i es di sa gree ov er w h e th e rth e c a u s e a n d p r e ju d ic e s ta n d a r d s u rv iv e s A E D P A . C om pa re U ni ted Stat es v. L op ez , 577 F . 3d 1053, 1063 n. 8 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng tha t“ the m ea ni ng of ‘ se cond or succ es si ve’ i s i nform ed by the abuse-of- the-w ri tdo ctri ne” ( c i t i ng P ane t t iv . Q uar te rm an , 5 5 1 U .S . 9 3 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ) ) , w i th U ni ted Stat es v. R obe rs on , 194 F . 3d 408, 411 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( “ A E D P A , how e ve r , r e pl a c e d the abus e - of - the w r i tdoc tr i ne a r t i c ul a t e d i n McC les ke y .” ) , an d B urris v . P arke , 95 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 9 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( “T h e d o c tr in e o f ab u s e o f th e w r it is defunct . ”) . 14 pe t i t i on ba r . ” H e s a y s tha t“ f a i l i ng t o r a i s e apl a i nl y m e r i t or i ous gr ound f or av o i d i n g th e d eath sen t en ce” w as i n co n si st en tw i th th e d u ty o f l o yal ty. 2 A . A ba ndo nm e nt W e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e rth e r e is a n a tto rn e y ab a n d o n m e n t e x c e p tio n to the st atut ory baron se cond or succ es si ve pet i t i on s, because w e c on cl ud e that T o w e ry w a s n o t ab a n d o n e d b y c o u n s e l in th is c a s e . A f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i one r– w ho a s s uc h doe s notha ve aS i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ghtt o c ouns e l – i s or di na r i l y bound by hi s a tt orne y ’ s ne gl i ge nc e , be c a us e the a tto rn e y a n d th e c lie n t h a v e a n a g e n c y r e la tio n s h ip u n d e rw h ic h th e p r in c ip a l is b o u n d b y th e a c tio n s o f th e a g e n t. Se e C ole m an v . T hom ps on , 501 U . S . 722, 753 ( 1991) ( “ A tt orne y i gnor a nc e ori na dve r t e nc e i s not‘ c a us e ’ [ f ore xc us i ng pr oc e dur a l de f

a ul t ] be c a us e the a tt orne y i s the pe t i t i one r ’ s a ge ntw he n a c t i ng, or15

fai l i n g t o act , i n fu rth eran ce o f th e l i t i g at i o n , an d th e p et i t i o n er m u st‘ b ear th e ri sk of a tt orne y e rr or . ’ ” ( quot i ng Mu rra y v. C a rri er, 4 7 7 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 8 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) ) ; se e a l so M a p les, 1 3 2 S . C t. at 9 2 2 (“N eg li g en ce o n th e p ar t o f a p riso n er ’s pos t c onvi c t i on a tt orne y doe s notqua l i f ya s ‘ c aus e ’ . . . be c a us e the a tt orne y i s the pri soner’ s a gent , and u nd er‘ w el l -s ett l ed pri nci pl es of agency l aw , ’ the pri nci pal be a r s the r i s k of

ne gl i ge ntc onduc ton the pa r tof hi s a ge nt . ” ( quot i ng C ole m an , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 7 5 3 - 5 4 ) ) ; c

f. H ol land , 13 0 S . C t . at25 64 (hol di ng that“ a ‘ garden va r i e ty c l a i m ’ of

a tt orne y ne gl i ge nc e ” “ doe s notw a rr a nte qui t abl e t ol l i ng” of the one - y e a rs t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons gove rni ng f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i ons ( quot i ng Irw i n v. D ep ’t o f V etera n s A f f a i rs , 4 9 8 U .S . 8 9 , 9 6 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ) ) ; G on zalez , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 5 3 2 n .5 ( o b s e rv i n g th a tah ab e a s p e t i t i o n e r ’ s R u l e 6 0 m o t i o n “ b a s e d o n th e m o v a n t ’ s o wn c onduc t , orhi s habe a s c ouns e l ’ s om i s s i ons , . . . or di na r i l y doe s notgo t o the i nt e gr i ty of

the pr oc e e di ngs , ” a nd thus i s s ubj e c tt o the ba ron s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve habeas pet i t i on s) . A n att o rn ey w h o “ ab an d o n s h i s cl i en tw i th o u tn o t i ce, ” h o w ev er, “ sev er[s] th e p rin cip al-a g en t relatio n sh ip ” a n d “n o lo n g erac ts, o r f ails to ac t, as th e c li en t’ s re pres ent at i ve. ” M

ap les , 13 2 S . C t . at92 2-23 . “ H i s a ct s or om i ss i on s there fore

‘ ca nn otfa i rl y be a ttri bu t ed t o [the cl i ent ] . ’ ” I d. a t 9 2 3 ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( quot i ng C ole m an , 50 1 U . S . at75 3).16

T ow ery r el i es on these pri nci pl es here . H e poi nt s out , corr ec t l y, that M a y n a r d o w e d h im ad u ty o f lo y a lty . See W

ebb v. G i t t len , 174 P . 3d 275, 279 (A ri z. 20 08 ) ( “ A tt orneys ar e f i du ci ar i es w i th d ut i es of l oyal ty, ca re , and o bedi ence , w hos e r e l a t i ons hi p w i th the c l i e ntm us tbe one of ‘ utm os ttrus t . ’ ” ( quot i ng In re P ia tt , 9 5 1 P .2 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 1 ( A r iz . 1 9 9 7 ) ) ) ; I n r e Es tate of

Shano , 869 P . 2d 1203, 1210 ( A r iz . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ( “A la w y e r ’s o v e rr id in g d u ty o f lo y a lty to ac lie n t is ab a s ic t e ne tof the a tt orne y - c l i e ntr e l a t i ons hi p. I nhe r e nti n thi s pr i nc i pl e i s the c onc e pt tha tno othe ri nt e r e s torc ons i de r a t i on s houl d be pe rm i tt e d t o i nt e r f e r e w i th the l a w y e r ’ s l oy a l ty t o hi s c l i e nt . ” ) ; A r i z onaR ul e s of P r of e s s i ona l C onduc tR . 1. 7; R es t at em ent(T hi rd) of L aw G ov erni ng L aw ye rs § 1 6 (20 00 ). T ow e ry i s a l s o c orr e c ttha t , unde rge ne r a l a ge nc y pr i nc i pl e s , br e a c h of the d u ty o f lo y a lty c a n te rm in a te a n a g e n c y r e la tio n s h ip . Se e S ta te v . D iG iu lio , 835 P .2 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 2 ( A r iz . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( “V io la tin g th e d u ty o f lo y a lty , o rf

a ilin g to di s c l os e a dve r s e i nt e r e s t s , voi ds the a ge nc y r e l a t i ons hi p. ” ) ; R e s t a t e m e nt( S e c ond) of A ge nc y § 112 ( 1958) ( “ U nl e s s othe rw i s e a gr e e d, the a uthor i ty of a n a ge nt te rm in a te s if

, w ith o u t k n o w le d g e o f

th e p r in c ip a l, h e a c q u ir e s a d v e r s e in te r e s ts o rif he i s otherw i se gu i l ty of ase ri ou s bre ac h o f l oyal ty t o the pri nci pal . ”) . T ow e ry , how e ve r , ha s nots how n s e ve r a nc e of hi s a tt orne y - c l i e nt re l at i on shi p w i th M ay nard. F i rs t , T ow ery has no tshow n thatM ay nard com m i tt ed17

a“ s e r i ous br e a c h of

l oy a l ty . ” T ow e ry doe s nota r gue , a nd the r e c or d doe s not s u g g e s t, th a t M a y n a r d p e rm itte d a n y in te r e s t o rc o n s id e r a tio n to in te r f e r e w ith h is l oyal ty t o T ow ery. T ow ery a l so has pre se nt ed no autho ri ty f or the prop osi t i on that c ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o r a i s e ac ol or abl e habe a s c l a i m a m ount s t o as e r i ous br e a c h of the duty of

l oy a l ty tha ts e ve r s the a tt orne y - c l i e nta ge nc y r e l a t i ons hi p. W e a r e not aw are o f an y su ch au th o ri ty. S ec on d, T ow ery a l so has notshow n aband on m ent . “ W i thd ra w al , w hether pr ope rori m pr ope r , t e rm i na t e s the l a w y e r ’ s a uthor i tyt o a c tf orthe c l i e nt , ” a nd

“ [t ] he cl i enti s notbo un d b y a ct s of al aw ye r w ho re fuse s t o repres entthe cl i ent . ” R e s t a t e m e nt( T hi r d) of

L a w G ove rni ng L a w y e r s § 31 c m t . f ( 2000) ( c i t i ng R e s t a t e m e nt( S e c ond) of A ge nc y § 118 ( 1958) ( “ A uthor i ty t e rm i na t e s i f the p r in c ip a l o rth e a g e n t m a n if e s ts to th e o th e rd is s e n t to its c o n tin u a n c e .” ) ) ; see a l so M ap les , 132 S . C t . a t922- 23. H e r e , how e ve r , M a y na r d di d notr e f us e t o r e pr e s e nt T o w e ry o rr e n o u n c e th e a tto rn e y - c lie n t r e la tio n s h ip . O n th e c o n tr a ry , h e d ilig e n tly p u r s u e d h ab e a s r e lie f

o n T o w e ry ’s b e h a lf

, a lth o u g h o m ittin g ac o lo r ab le c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m f

r om T ow e ry ’ s a m e nde d pe t i t i on. T ow e ry ’ s a tt e m pt s t o c om pa r e hi s c a s e t o H ol land a nd M

a p les ar e there fore unpe r s ua s i ve . T he i s s ue i n H ol land w a s w h e th e rth e p e titio n e rw a s e n title d to e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. A pe t i t i one ri s e nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng onl y “ i f he s how s ‘ ( 1)18

thathe has been pursui ng hi s r i gh t s di l i gent l y, and (2) thatsom e e xtra ordi nary ci rc um st ance st oo d i n h i s w ay ’ and p re vent ed t i m el y f i l i ng . ” H

ol land , 13 0 S . C t . at 2562 ( quot i ng P a c e v . Di Gu g l i e lmo , 5 4 4 U .S . 4 0 8 , 4 1 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ) . T h e C o u r t h e ld that , al tho ug h g ar den v ar i ety a tt orney negl i gence i s notan extra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e , “ pr of

e s s i ona l m i s c onduc t. . . c oul d . . . a m ountt o e gr e gi ous behavi or and crea t e a n extra ordi naryci rc um st ance thatw arra nt s e qu i t abl e t ol l i ng . ” I d. a t2563. T h e C o u r t th e n f

o u n d th e e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e r e q u ir e m e n t w a s lik e ly s a t i s f i e d i n the c a s e be f

or e i t . C ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o f

i l e the pe t i t i one r ’ s pe t i t i on on t i m e a nd i gn orance of the fi l i ng deadl i ne “ sugg es t [e d] si m pl e negl i gence. ” I d. at 2564. B utc ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e s w e ntm uc h f

ur the r , vi ol a t i ng “ f

unda m e nt a l c a nons of pr of e s s i ona l r e s pons i bi l i ty ” r e qui r i ng a tt orne y s t o “ pe r f orm r e a s onabl y c om pe t e nt le g a l w o rk , to c o m m u n ic a te w ith th e irc lie n ts , to im p le m e n t c lie n ts ’ r e a s o n ab le r e que s t s , t o ke e p the i rc l i e nt s i nf orm e d of ke y de ve l opm e nt s i n the i rc a s e s , a nd never t o aband on a c l i ent . ” I d. C o u n sel ’ s fai l u res al so cau sed th e p et i t i o n er t o l o se

“ w h atw as l i k el y h i s si n g l e o p p o rtu n i ty fo r fed eral h ab eas rev i ew o f th e l aw fu l n ess of hi s i m pri sonm entand o f hi s dea th sent ence . ” I d. a t2565. O n tha tr e c or d, the C our tc onc l ude d tha tc ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e s w e r e l i ke l y s uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e p r o n g o f e q u itab le to llin g . Se e i d. a t 2 5 6 4 - 6 5 ; see a l so19

i d. a t2568 ( A l i t o, J . , c onc urr i ng) ( “ C om m on s e ns e di c t a t e s tha tal i t i ga ntc a nnotbe he l d c ons truc t i ve l y r e s pons i bl e f orthe c onduc tof

a n a tt orne y w ho i s notope r a t i ng as hi s a genti n any m ea ni ng ful se nse of thatw ord. ”) . I n M ap les , the i ss ue w as w hether c ou nsel ’ s aband on m entcoul d serve as c a u s e f o rlif tin g th e b a ro n p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u lt. See M

ap les , 1 3 2 S . C t. a t 9 2 2 . C a us e e xi s t s w he r e s om e thi ng e xt e rna l t o the pe t i t i one r , s om e thi ng tha tc a nnot fa irly b e a ttrib u ted to h im , i m p ed ed h is ef fo rts to co m p ly w ith th e s tate’s p r o c e d u r a l ru le . Se e i d. N e gl i ge nc e on the pa r tof ape t i t i one r ’ s pos t c onvi c t i on a tto rn e y d o e s n o t q u a lif y a s c a u s e , b e c a u s e th e a tto rn e y is th e p e titio n e r ’s a g e n t, a n d th e p r in c ip a l b e a r s th e r is k o f n e g lig e n t c o n d u c t o n th e p a r t o f h is a g e n t. See id. W he n a n a tt orne y aba ndons hi s c l i e ntw i thoutnot i c e , how e ve r , the pr i nc i pa l - a ge ntr e l a t i ons hi p i s s e ve r e d, a nd the a tt orne y ’ s a c t s orom i s s i ons c a n no lo n g e rb e f

a ir ly b e a ttr ib u te d to th e c lie n t. Se e i d. a t922- 23. I n M ap les , the st andard for abandon m entw as sa t i sf i ed. T he pet i t i on er ’ s pro b o n o co u n se l, tw o S u ll iv an & C ro m w ell att o rn ey s, left S u ll iv an & C ro m w ell’ s em pl oy m on ths before the st at e procedural defaul toccurre d, and n o o ther l aw ye r – l oc a l c ouns e l orothe rS ul l i va n & C r om w e l l a tt orne y s – w a s s e rvi ng a s the p e titio n e r ’s a g e n t in a n y m e a n in g f u l s e n s e o f

th e w o r d . Se e i d. at9 2 4 -2 7 . A s a20

re sul t , the pet i t i on erw as “ l ef tw i tho utany f

un ct i on i ng att orney of r ec ord. ” I d. at 927. T ow e ry ’ s c a s e doe s notc om pa r e t o H ol land a nd M

ap les . A tm ost , T ow ery a lle g e s th a t M a y n a r d w a s n e g lig e n t in f a ilin g to r a is e ac o lo r ab le E dd i n gs-T en n a rd c l a i m i n T ow e ry ’ s a m e nde d f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on. I n c ontr a s tt o H ol land , ho w ever , T ow ery m akes no cl ai m thatM ay nard performed incom pet entl egal w o rk , f a ile d to c o m m u n ic a te w ith h im , r e f u s e d to im p le m e n t h is r e a s o n ab le r e q u e s ts o rf

a ile d to k e e p h im in f

o rm e d o f k e y d e v e lo p m e n ts in h is c a s e . N o r , in c ontr a s tt o M

ap les , di d M a y na r d c e a s e s e rvi ng a s T ow e ry ’ s a ge nti n a ny m e a ni ngf

ul s e ns e of

tha tw or d orl e a ve T ow e ry w i thouta ny f unc t i oni ng a tt orne y of re cord. T ow ery’ s c l ai m of abando nm enti s there fore un pers uasi ve. F ur the rm or e , a s the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d, M a y na r d pr e s e nt e d e i ghts ubs t a nt i ve cl ai m s of c on st i tut i on al error a s w el l as nu m er ou s di st i nctal l egat i on s of c ou nsel i neff ec t i veness . H e a l so pu rs ued an i nn ocence theory bas ed on previ ou sl y unt es t ed c r im e s c e n e e v id e n c e . O r d e rD e n . M o t. R e lie f J ., J a n . 9 , 2 0 1 2 , a t 4 - 5 . C o n s e q u e n tly , th e c o u r t f o u n d th a t “[ o ]n th is r e c o r d , . . . M a y n a r d ’s f a ilu r e to pres entthe T

e nnar d c l a i m di d notc ons t i tut e aba ndonm e ntorde pr i ve P e t i t i one rof any opp ortun i ty t o b e hea rd concerni ng the const i tut i on al i ty of hi s c on vi ct i on . ” I d. a t 5 . E v e n if

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

in d in g r e g a r d in g ab a n d o n m e n t w a s in c o rr e c t, it21

wa s n o t“ i l l o g i c a l , i m p l a u s i b l e , o rwi th o u ts u p p o r ti n i n f e r e n c e s th a tm a y b e d r a wn fr om the fa ct s i n the re cord. ” Hi nk s on , 5 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 3 . B . S tr en gth of th e E ddin gs C la im O u r co n cl u si o n i s rei n fo rced w h en w e co n si d er T o w ery’ s E dd i n gs-T en n a rd cl ai m ap p l yi n g A E D P A ’ s g o v ern i n g st an d ard s. T o w e ry ’s f

e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n is g o v e rn e d b y A E D P A . See T ow er y I I, 64 1 F . 3d at30 6. U nd erA E D P A , an appl i ca t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus m ay n o t b e g r a n te d u n le s s th e la s t r e a s o n e d s ta te c o u r t d e c is io n a d ju d ic a tin g th e c la im o n th e m e r its w a s “c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d F e d e r a l la w , a s d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s ,” or“ w a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). T ow e ry r e l i e s e xc l us i ve l y on the f i r s tof the s e pr ongs , a r gui ng tha tthe d e c is io n s o f

th e A r iz o n ac o u r ts w e r e “c o n tr a ry to ” S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t in L o c ke tt , E dd i n gs a nd P en ry . A s ta te c o u r t d e c is io n is “c o n tr a ry to ” f e d e r a l la w if the courtei ther “ arri ves a ta c on cl usi on op po si t e t o thatre ac hed b y [ the S up re m e] C ou rton a quest i on of l aw , ” or a rr i ves a ta di ff er entre sul ton fa ct s thatar e

“ m at er i al l y i nd i st i ng ui shabl e f rom a r el evantS up re m e C ou rtprec edent . ” Wi l l i a ms v . T ay lor , 5 2 9 U . S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 (2 0 0 0 ). “ W e rev i ew th e st at e co u rt ’ s l astT ow e ry s ugge s t s w e r e vi e w the de c i s i ons of the s e nt e nc i ng c our ta nd the 3 s t a t e s upr e m e c our tt oge the r . “ W he n m or e tha n one s t a t e c our tha s a dj udi c a t e d a cl ai m , w e a nal yz e the l as tre as on ed deci si on . ” B arke rv . Fle m i ng , 423 F . 3d 1085, 1091 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . T he A E D P A i nqui ry appl i e s “ t o as i ngl e s t a t e c our tde c i s i on, no tt o som e a m al gam at i on of m ul t i pl e s t at e c ou rtdeci si on s. ” I d. a t1093. W e ha ve c ons i de r e d m or e tha n one de c i s i on w he n “ the l a s tr e a s one d de c i s i on a dopt e d or s u b s ta n tia lly in c o rp o r a te d th e r e a s o n in g f r o m ap r e v io u s d e c is io n a n d , a s ar e s u lt, it w a s r e a s o n ab le f

o rth e r e v ie w in g c o u r t to lo o k a t b o th d e c is io n s to f u lly a s c e r ta in the re as on i ng of the l as tdeci si on . ” I d. O urf oc us he r e i s on the i nde pe nde nt re vi ew cond uct ed by the st at e s up re m e c ou rti n the l as tre as on ed st at e- court de c i s i on. 22 re as on ed deci si on . ” Cri t ten den v. A yers , 62 4 F . 3d 94 3, 95 0 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). H er e, th e l astreaso n ed d eci si o n ad d ressi n g T o w ery’ s E dd i n gs-T en n a rd c l a i m i s the de c i s i on of

the A r i z onaS upr e m e C our ta f f i rm i ng T ow e ry ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e n t e n c e o n d i r e c tr e v i e w. 3 T he st at e s up re m e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on i s notcontra ryt o S up re m e C ou rt pr e c e de nt . T he A r i z onaS upr e m e C our tr e c ogni z e d tha t“ as e nt e nc e rm a y notbe pr e c l ude d f

r om c ons i de r i ng, a nd m a y notr e f us e t o c ons i de r , a ny r e l e va nt m i t i gat i ng evi dence offe re d b y the defendantas a bas i s f or a s ent ence l es s than death. ” T

ow er y I, 920 P . 2d a t311 ( quot i ng P en ry , 49 2 U . S . at31 8) (i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . I t r e c o g n iz e d th a t, “[ h ]a v in g c o n s id e r e d f a m ily backgrou nd du ri ng the penal ty phase , the se nt ence r m ustgi ve the evi dence s uch w ei gh tthatthe se nt ence re fl ec t s a‘ re as on ed m oral re spon se ’ t o the evi dence. ” I d. ( quot i ng P en ry , 49 2 U . S . at31 9). Ital so re cogn i ze d that“ [t ] he se nt ence r there fore23

m u s t c o n s id e rth e d e f

e n d a n t’s u p b r in g in g if

p r o f f e r e d b u t is n o t r e q u ir e d to g iv e it si gn i fi ca ntm i t i gat i ng w ei gh t . H ow m uch w ei gh tshou l d b e gi ven p roff er ed m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors i s am att erw i thi n the soun d d i sc re t i on of the se nt enci ng j ud ge. ” I d. T h e s e we r e a l l c o rr e c ts t a t e m e n t s o f th e l a w. T he s upr e m e c our ta l s o s a i d tha t“ adi f f i c ul tf a m i l y ba c kgr ound i s not a lw a y s e n title d to g r e a t w e ig h t a s am itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e ” ; th a t “f a m ily ba c kgr ound m a y be as ubs t a nt i a l m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e w he n i ti s s how n t o ha ve s om e c onne c t i on w i th the de f e nda nt ’ s of

f e ns e - r e l a t e d c onduc t ” ; a nd tha tw he r e the defe nd antfa i l s t o con necthi s f am i l y bac kg roun d t o h i s c ri m i nal cond uct , a tri al ju d g e c o u ld g iv e it little o rn o w e ig h t o rv a lu e . I d. T he s e s t a t e m e nt s t oo w e r e not c o n tr a ry to S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. See Sc had v . R y an , ___ F . 3d ____, N o. 07- 99005, 2011 W L 5433763, a t*14 ( 9th C i r . N ov. 10, 2011) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ T he U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our tha s s a i d tha tthe us e of the ne xus t e s t[ t o a s s e s s the q u al i ty an d stren g th o f th e m i t i g at i o n ev i d en ce] i s n o tu n co n st i tu t i o n al b ecau se s t a t e c our t s a r e f

r e e t o a s s e s s the w e i ghtt o be gi ve n t o pa r t i c ul a rm i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . ” ( c i t i ng E ddi ngs , 4 5 5 U .S . a t 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) ) , pet i t i on f or re h’g en b an c f

i led (N ov . 23 , 20 11 ). T he suprem e c ou rtal so “ i nd ependent l y w ei gh [e d] the m i t i gat i ng evi dence agai nstthe aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s t o d et erm i ne w hether l eni ency[w a] s c al l edT ow e ry doe s nota r gue tha tthe s t a t e s upr e m e c our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe 4 sen t en ci n g co u rtu sed a n ex u s t estas a w ei g h i n g m ech an i sm rath er th an as a s c r e e ni ng m e c ha ni s m w a s a n “ unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s ” unde r28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . See L o p ez v. Sch ri ro , 49 1 F . 3d 10 29 , 10 37 -38 & n. 2 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( trea ti n g th e s tate su p re m e c o u rt’s d eter m in atio n o f th e s en ten cin g co u rt’s a c t i ons a s aque s t i on of

hi s t or i c a l f

a c ts ubj e c tt o r e vi e w f

orobj e c t i ve un re as on abl enes s und er§ 2 25 4(d)(2)). W e there fore do no tre ac h thati ss ue. 24 for. ” T ow er y I, 29 0 P . 2d at31 0. A s partof thatre vi ew , the courtconsi dere d w hether e vi dence of T ow ery’ s di ff i cul tchi l dh oo d sho ul d b e gi ven sub st ant i al w e ig h t. Se e i d. a t 3 1 1 . A g r e e in g w ith th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t, it a c c o r d e d th is e v id e n c e “little o rn o m itig a tin g v a lu e ” b e c au s e T o w e ry “f a ile d to c o n n e c t h is fa m i l y bac kg roun d t o h i s c ri m i nal cond uct . ” I d. T h e e v id e n c e w a s e n title d to little or no w ei gh tbecause i tdi d “ no tprov e al oss of i m pu l se control or expl ai n w hat caused hi m t o k i l l . ” I

d. T hese st at em ent s t oo w er e notcontra ryt o S up re m e C ou rt p r e c e d e n t. 4 O ne coul d q uest i on the w is do m o f th e A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n to a c c o r d T o w e ry ’s e v id e n c e little o rn o w e ig h t. See L a m b ri g h t v. Sch ri ro , 490 F . 3d 11 03 , 11 15 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( per c uri am ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ evi dence re l at i ng t o l i fe circ u m stan ce s w ith n o ca u sa l relatio n sh ip to th e c rim e,” s u ch as “a d ef en d an t’ s d i sad v an t ag ed b ack g ro u n d , em o t i o n al an d m en t al p ro b l em s, an d ad v erse h i st o ry,

. . . m i gh tcause ase nt ence r t o d et erm i ne thata l i fe se nt ence , ra ther than d ea th at the hand s of the st at e, i s the approp ri at e pun i shm entfor the part i cul ardefe nd ant ”) ;25

c f . Sm i th v . T

ex as , 5 4 3 U .S . 3 7 , 4 5 (2 0 0 4 ) ( p ercu riam ) ( h o ld in g th at p etit io n er ’s ev i d en ce o f a tro u b l ed ch i l d h o o d “ w as rel ev an tfo r m i t i g at i o n p u rp o ses” n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to e s tab lis h an e x u s b e tw e e n h is b a c k g r o u n d a n d h is c r im e ) ; T en n a rd , 54 2 U . S . at28 7 (“ [W ] e c anno tcoun t enance th e su g g est i o n th atl o w IQ ev i d en ce i s n o trel ev an tm i t i g at i n g ev i d en ce . . . u n l ess the defendantal so es t abl i shes a nexus t o the cr i m e. ”) . H o w ev er, th e co u rt ’ s r e as one d and i ndi v i dual i z e d d ec isio n to g iv e T o w er y’s e v id e n c e little o rn o w e ig h t w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. See E ddi ngs , 4 5 5 U .S . a t 1 1 4 - 1 5 ( “T h e s e n te n c e r , a n d th e C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls on re vi ew , m aydet erm i ne the w ei gh tt o b e gi ven rel evantm i t i gat i ng evi dence. ”) ; Sc had , 20 11 W L 54 33 76 3, at*1 4 (“ T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rthas s ai d that the us e of

the ne xus t e s t[ i n a s s e s s i ng the qua l i ty a nd s tr e ngth of the m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e ] i s notunc ons t i tut i ona l be c a us e s t a t e c our t s a r e f r e e t o a s s e s s the w e i ght t o be gi ve n t o pa r t i c ul a rm i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e ” ) . T he r e c or d s uppor t s the c onc l us i on tha tthe A r i z onaS upr e m e C our tga ve T ow e ry ’ s di f f i c ul tc hi l dhood l i tt l e ornoB ecau se w e co n cl u d e th atT o w ery’ s E dd i n gs-T en n a rd c l a i m w oul d not 5 s a tis f y § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) , w e d o n o t a d d r e s s th e c o n s titu tio n a l m e r its o f th e c la im . See Frant z v . H azey , 533 F . 3d 724, 736- 37 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( e n ba nc ) ( di s c us s i ng the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the A E D P A a na l y s i s unde r§ 2254( d) ( 1) a nd the a na l y s i s of the const i tut i on al cl ai m on the m er i t s) . W e a l so do no taddres s w hether, i f there w a s c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orby the s e nt e nc i ng c our t , the s upr e m e c our t ’ s i nde pe nde nt r e v ie w c u r e d it. Se e R ic h m o n d v . L e w is , 5 0 6 U .S . 4 0 , 4 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t c a n c u r e as e n te n c in g e rr o rin ac ap ita l c a s e w h e n “th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t . . . a c tu a lly p e r f o rm [ s ] a n e w s e n te n c in g c a lc u lu s ” ) ; C lem on s v . Mis s is s i ppi , 49 4 U . S . 73 8, 74 1, 75 0-51 (199 0). T he st at e does noti nv ok e the cure do ctri ne or ar gu e thatthe suprem e c ou rtperf orm ed a new se nt enci ng ca l cul us here . 26 w ei gh tas a m att eroff

act , af t ergi vi ng i nd i vi du al i ze d con si dera t i on t o the evi dence, r a th e rth a n tr e a t i n g th e e v i d e n c e a s i rr e l e v a n to rn o n m i t i g a t i n g a s am a tt e ro f l a w. 5 T o w ery p o i n t s o u tth atth e A ri zo n a S u p rem e C o u rti n i t s T ow er y de c i s i on r e f e rr e d t o Stat e v . W

al lace , 773 P . 2d 983, 985- 86 ( A r i z . 1989) , ade c i s i on w e ha ve d e e m e d c o n s titu tio n a lly s u s p e c t, s e e Sc had , 20 11 W L 54 33 76 3, at*1 3. T ow ery al so po i nt s t o the A ri zona court ’ s s ub se qu enti nt erpret at i on of T o w ery , se e Stat e v H os ki ns , 14 P . 3d 99 7, 10 21 -22 (A ri z. 20 00 ), thatsugg es t s the courtm ayhave ci t ed T ow er y a s s uppor t i ng a n a na l y s i s now c ons t i tut i ona l l y i nf i rm . B utthi s doe s not r e qui r e us t o hol d the A r i z onac our tc om m i tt e d c ons t i tut i ona l e rr ori n T o w ery i t s e l f . T he A r i z onac our t ’ s opi ni on a s aw hol e i ndi c a t e s the c our tunde r s t ood S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nta nd appl i e d i tc orr e c t l y . O urr e vi e w m us tbe of the r e c or d i n T

o w ery i t s e l f

, r a the rtha n the s t a t e s upr e m e c our t ’ s s ubs e que nt i nt erpret at i on s of T

o w ery . Se e L opezv . R

y an , 630 F . 3d 1198, 1203 ( 9th C i r . 2011)27

(e xp l ai ni ng thatw e r evi ew “ the reco rd , ” t o d et erm i ne w hether “ the st at e c ou rt ap p lie d th e w r o n g s ta n d a r d ,” a n d w e “c a n n o t a s s u m e th e c o u r ts v io la te d . . . c ons t i tut i ona l m a nda t e s ” othe rw i s e ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) ) . C ons i de r i ng T o w ery its e lf

, w e c o n c lu d e th a t it w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t –ac o n c lu s io n w e h a v e n o te d b e f o r e . Se e i d. a t1203- 04 & n. 4 ( c i t i ng T o w ery a s ade c i s i on i n w hi c h the A r i z ona S upr e m e C our t“ pr ope r l y l ooke d t o c a us a l ne xus onl y a s af a c t ori n de t e rm i ni ng the w e i ghtors i gni f

i c a nc e of m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e ” ) . E ve n i f s ubs e que ntA r i z ona S up re m e C ou rti nt erpret at i on s of T ow er y w er e r elev an t t o o u r a n alys is, A rizo n a’s c a s e la w in th is r e g a r d is c o n f lic tin g . Se e State v . Sans i ng , 26 P . 3d 1118, 1129 ( A r i z . 2001) ( c i t i ng T

ow er y for the prop osi t i on thatthe “ se nt ence r there fore m u st consi derth e d e f

e n d a n t’s u p b r in g in g if

p r o f f e r e d b u t is n o t r e q u ir e d to g iv e it s i gni f i c a ntm i t i ga t i ng w e i

ght . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( quot i ng T o w ery , 29 0 P . 2d at 3 1 1 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) , j udgm e nt v ac ate d on othe rgr ounds by Sans i ng v . A r i

z ona , 53 6 U . S . 95 4 (20 02 ). Indeed, T ow ery’ s c ou nsel conceded at o ral arg u m en tth atw e sh o u l d n o tb ase o u r an al ysi s o n th i s co n fl i ct i n g A ri zo n a case l aw , bu tshou l d i nst ea d con fi ne ou r r evi ew t o the re cord of T o w ery . W e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed the corre ctl egal rul e f or the re l i ef re qu es t ed on thi s c l ai m , and the courtdi d n otm ake a n “ i l l og i ca l [ or] i m pl ausi bl e”28

det erm i nat i on w hen i tconcl ud ed thatM ay nard’ s a ct i on s di d n otam ou ntt o an e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e w a rr a n tin g r e lie f u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) . Hi nk s on , 585 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 2 - 6 3 ; se e al

so G on zalez , 5 4 5 U . S . at5 3 5 . A tm o st , T o w ery al l eg es a cl ai m of negl i gence, w hi ch fa l l s f arshortof a c l ai m of abando nm ent . T ow ery w as n e ith e rs u b

je c te d to “e g r e g io u s ” p r o f e s s io n a l m is c o n d u c t, H

ol land , 13 0 S . C t . at 25 63 -64, no r “ l ef

tw i tho utany f

un ct i on i ng att orney of r ec ord, ” M ap les , 1 3 2 S . C t. a t927. I V. C ONCLUSI ON I n s um , e ve n a s s um i ng a tt orne y aba ndonm e ntc oul d c ons t i tut e a n e xc e pt i on t o the s t a tut ory ba ron s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve habe a s pe t i t i ons , T ow e ry ha s not s how n tha the w a s aba ndone d i n thi s c a s e . N orha s he s how n as e r i ous br e a c h of l oyal ty thatm i gh thave se vere d h i s a gency r el at i on shi p w i th cou nsel . T he di stri ct c our tthe r e f

or e pr ope r l y tr e a t e d T ow e ry ’ s R ul e 60 m ot i on a s as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve p e titio n a n d d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g th e m o tio n . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 24 4(b)(2), (b)( 3)(A ). AF F I RME D. T ow e ry ’ s e m e r ge nc y m ot i on f oras t a y of

e xe c ut i on, f

i l e d F e brua ry 24, 20 12 , i s pre m i se d o n the m er i t s of hi s R ul e 60(b)(6) m ot i on . G i ven o ur af fi rm ance29

of the de ni a l of

the R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on, T ow e ry ’ s e m e r ge nc y m ot i on i s he r e by D EN I ED .30 C ou n se l J o n M. S a n d s , F e d e r a l P u b l i c De f e n d e r ; T h e r e s e M. Da y ( a r g u e d ) , Da l e A. B a i c h a nd K e l l y L . S c hne i de r , A s s i s t a ntF e de r a l P ubl i c D e f e nde r s , P hoe ni x, A r iz o n a , f

o rp e titio n e r - ap p e lla n t. T ho m as C . H orne, A tt orney G ener al ; K entE . C att ani , D i vi si on C hi ef C ouns e l , C r i m i na l A ppe a l s / C api t a l L i t i ga t i on D i vi s i on; J e f f r e y A . Z i c k, S e c t i on C hi ef C ou nsel ; Jon G . A nd er son (ar gu ed), A ss i st antA tt orney G ener al , C api t al L i t i g at i o n D i v i si o n , P h o en i x , A ri zo n a, fo r resp o n d en t -ap p el l ees.