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

### October 19,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee , v. BREN T M AR QU I ZE LEE , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t . N o. 06- 2122 ( D . C . N os . C I V - 05- 1345 and C R -02-230 3 W J ) ( D .N .M . )

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t B re n t M a rq u ize L e e p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e (c o u n t I), p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se (c o u n t II), a n d b e in g a f u g iti v e f

ro m ju stic e in p o sses sion o f a firearm (sup p lem en tal info rm ati o n ). 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), (b )(1 )(B )(iii), 84 6 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 , 9 2 2 (a )(2 ), (g )(2 ). M r. L e e in d ica tes th a t in Ju ly2 0 0 3 , the d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d h im to 1 8 8 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t as to count s I and I I , and 119 mont hs on the s uppl ement al i nform at i on, t o run concurr ent l y . M r . L ee di d notappea l hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . O n D ece m ber 27, 2005, M r . L ee f

i l ed a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on al l egi ng thathi s s ent ence w as- 2 -

i l l e ga l un de rthe Sup r e me Court ’ s de c i s i on s i n Bl a ke l yv. W a s hi ng t on , 54 2 U. S. 296 ( 2004) , and U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . H e al s o ar gued thatthe B ookerdeci s i on r es ul t ed i n a br eac h of hi s pl ea a gr eementand thathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ats ent enci ng. A ft err evi ew i ng the mer i t s , the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed M r . L ee’ s pet i t i on w i th pr ej udi ce on February13, 2006. R . D oc. 3 at2. O n A pr i l 17, 2006, M r . L ee fil ed a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l, w h ich w e c o n stru e a s a re n ew ed ap p li ca ti o n fo r a cert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) . Fed. R . A pp. P. 22( b) . B ecaus e M r . L ee ha s fa il ed to d em o n str ate tha t i t i s rea so n ab lyd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s rul i ng di s m i s s i ng hi s cl ai m s i s corr ect , Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (2 0 0 0 ), w e d e n ya C O A a n d d ism iss th e ap p e a l. A s a thr es hol d m att er , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherM r . L ee’ s not i ce of appea l i s t i m el y . A s w e have fr equent l ys t at ed, “[t ] he fi l i ng of a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l i s an abs ol ut e pr er equi s i t e t o ourj ur i s di ct i on. ” Parkerv. B d. of Pub. U til s., 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e p a rtyc laim in g ap p e llate ju risd ictio n , in th is c a se M r. L e e , h a s th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g o u r su bjec tm att er jurisdicti o n . M o n toy a v . C h ao , 2 9 6 F . 3 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). R ul e 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) , Fed. R . A pp. P. , r equi r es thatnot i ce of appea l be fi l ed w i thi n 60 day s of the entryof j udgm entforanyci vi l orcr i m i nal cas e i n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es i s a party . T he di s tr i ctcourtent er ed j udgm enton February13,- 3 -

2 0 0 6 , se e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 8 (b )(2 ) (n o tin g th a t a ju d g m e n t is e n ter e d w h e n it i s fi l ed as a s epar at e document ) , butM r . L ee f i l ed hi s not i ce of

appea l on A pr i l 17, 20 06 , som e 63 day s l at er. B ecause M r. L ee did no tfi l e the n oti ce w i thin 60 d ay s, w e have j ur i s di ct i on onl yi f he c an demonstr at e compl i ance w i th the pr i s on mai l bo x rul e e mbodi e d i n Rul e 4( c ) ( 1) , Fe d. R. A pp . P. T he p ri son m ai l bo x rul e st at es: If a n in m a te c o n fin e d in a n in stitu tio n files a n o tice o f ap p e a l in e ith e r a c iv il o r c rim in a l ca se , the n o tice is tim e lyif it i s d e p o site d in the i ns t i tut i on’ s i nt ernal m ai l s y s t em on or be for e the l as tdayfor fi l i ng. I f an i ns t i tut i on has a s y s t em desi gned forl egalm ai l , the in m a te m u s t u s e th a t s y s te m to re c e iv e th e b e n e fit o f th is ru le . T i m el yfi l i ng m aybe s how n bya dec l ar at i on i n compl i ance w i th 28 U . S. C . § 1746 orbya not ar i zed s t at ement , ei therof w hi ch musts et forth the dat e of de pos i tand s t at e thatfi r s t - cl as s pos t age ha s been p r e p a i d . F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (c)(1). In U n it ed S tat es v . C eb all o s-M arti n ez , 3 8 7 F . 3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 5 (10 th C ir . 20 04 ), w e held that “[i ]f a pri son lacks a l egal m ai l sy st em , a pri soner m ust s ubm i ta dec l ar at i on ornot ar i zed s t at ements ett i ng forth the not i ce’ s dat e of depos i tw i th pr i s on offi ci al s and att es tthatfi r s t - cl as s pos t age w as pr e- pai d. ” W h ile w e h e ldth e d e c lar a tio n o r n o tar ize d sta tem e n t re q u ire m e n t to b e a b so lu te in c a se s w h e re th e re is n o sp e c ial le g a l m a il sy ste m , w e n o ted th a t a p riso n e r is f re e to file h is d e c la ra tio n o r n o ta ri z a tio n a t a n ytim e u n til th e c a s e is re s o lv e d . I d. at1144, n. 4. Fai l ur e t o compl yw i th the dec l ar at i on and not ar i zat i on- 4 -

r equi r ementpr event s thi s courtfr om havi ng j ur i s di ct i on. I d. at1445. W e iss u e d a n o rd e r to sh o w c a u se re q u irin g M r. L e e to a d d re ss w h e th e r h is not i ce of

appea l w as i n compl i ance w i th the pr i s on m ai l box rul e. W hi l e M r . L ee coul d have s ubm i tt ed a de cl ar at i on ornot ar i zed s t at ementatthatt i m e, he i ns t ead inclu d ed a p ara g rap h in h is brief e x p lai n ing that h e a n d h is l aw clerkw ere se p a ra ted b e c a u se o f

h u rric a n e K a trin a , h e h a d u se d “ a th ird p a rtym a il sy ste m ” to c o m m u n ica te w ith th e c o u rt, an d h e h a du se d “ d u e d ili g e n c e in fili n g h is paperw ork. ” A ppl t . B r . at3. If M r. L e e d idn o t u se a leg a l m a il sy ste m , w e lac kju risd ictio n . A b se n t a l egal m ai l s y s t em, a pr i s onerm us ts ubm i ta dec l ar at i on ornot ar i zed s t at ement l i st i ng the d at e of d epo si tw i th p ri son o ffi ci al s and att est i ng that fi rs t -cl ass pos t age w as pr e- pai d. C ebal l os - M art i nez, 387 F. 3d at1445. W e have r ej ect ed expl anat i ons thatfai l t o s tr i ct l ycompl yw i th ourr equi r ement s . See Pr i ce v. Phi l pot , 420 F. 3d 1158, 1166- 67 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng i ns uffi ci entan appel l ant ’ s not ar i zed s t at ementbecaus e i tdi d noti ncl ude the l anguage “under penal tyof per

j ury ” as r equi r ed by28 U . S. C . § 1746) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 182 F .3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 5 n .1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (rejec tin g ap p e llan t’s d e c lar a tio n b e c a u se it fai l ed t o s t at e thatfi r s t - cl as s pos t age w as pr epai d) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H err er a, 178 F ed . A p p ’x. 83 0 , 8 3 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (r ejec ti n g as su ffici en t an a p p ell an t’ s ex cu se th at hu rri ca n e K atri n a a ctua ll yd elay ed the tran sp o rto f h is fil ing ).- 5 -

W hi l e M r . L ee doe s notpr eci s el ys t at e thathe us ed a l egalm ai l s y s t em, he does s t at e thathe us ed “athi r d partym ai l s y s t em, ” w hi ch underthe fa ct s her ei n, w e equa t e t o a “l egal m ai l s y s t em. ” The envel ope ( corr ect l yr et ai ned bythe di s tr i ctcourt ) cont ai ni ng M r . L ee’ s not i ce of appea l bear s i ndepende nt ver i fi cat i on thats uch a s y s t em w as us ed. See C ebal l os - M art i nez, 387 F. 3d at 1144 ( decl ar at i on ornot ar i zed s t at ementi s r equi r ed onl y“i n l i eu of doc um ent i ng the t i m e of de pos i tbyw ayof the l egalm ai l s y s t em”) . St amped on the enve l ope, w hich w as transm i tt ed b ycert i fi ed m ai l and po stm arked A pri l 13 , 20 06 , i s a s t at ementfr om the pr i s on i ndi cat i ng thatM r . L ee’ s envel ope w as r ece i ved and p r o c e s s e d “ th r o u g h s p e c i a l m a i l i n g p r o c e d u r e s ” o n A p r i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , o r5 8 d a ys aft erentryof j udgm entbythe di s tr i ctcourt . C oupl ed w i th M r . L ee’ s i ndepende nt a ss e rtio n th a t h e u se d a “ th ird p a rtym a il sy ste m ,” th e p riso n ’s s tate m e n t is s uffi ci entpr oof t o demonstr at e thatM r . L ee us ed a l egalm ai l s y s t em. See Phi l pot , 420 F. 3d at1165 ( ci t i ng H ous t on v. L ack, 487 U . S. 266, 275 ( 1988) , for th e n o tio n th a t th e p re se n c e o f a re c e ip t lo g is th e k e yc o m p o n e n t o f a leg a l m a il s y s t em). T hi s concl us i on i s cons i s t entw i th ourpr act i ce of l i ber al l ycons trui ng a p ro se li ti g an t’ s p lead ing s, see W h it e v . C o lorad o , 8 2 F . 3 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 6 (10 th C ir . 1997) , and ouri ncl i nat i on t o deci de ca s es on the mer i t s as oppos ed t o r el i ance on mi n o rt e c h n i c a l i t i e s , s e e De n v e r& Ri o Gr a n d e W . R. R. Co . v . Un i o n P a c . R. R. C o . , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 4 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ).M r. L ee ’s arg u m en ts are n o t th e c learest, b u t w e thin kthe d istri ct co u rt 1 corr ect l ycat egor i zed them as aB ookerchal l enge a nd an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el chal l enge. M r . L ee’ s appar entar gum entthathi s pl ea s houl d be s peci fi cal l yenfor ced, t aki ng i nt o acc ountadmi tt ed fa ct s onl y , i s es s ent i al l yan ar gum entt o appl yB ookert o hi s s ent ence . - 6 - U nfortunat el yforM r . L ee, how ever , w e fi nd the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of hi s § 2255 m ot i on not r eas onabl y debat abl e. A r gum ent s l i ke M r . L ee’ s , that 1 h is sen tenc e is i ll eg al un d er B lake lyan d B o o k er, ha v e b ee n rejected b ythis co u rt m a n ytim e s. T h e h o ld in g s in B lak e lya n d B o o k e r a re n o t re tro a c tiv e a n d ap p ly o n ly to p e n d in g c a s e s o r c a s e s o n d ir e c t r e v ie w w h e n th e d e c is io n s w e re is s u e d . U ni t ed St at es v. B el l amy , 411 F. 3d 1182, 1188 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 400 F. 3d 844, 849 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ; L eonar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 383 F. 3d 1146, 1148 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . B ecaus e M r . L ee s eeks col l at er al r el i ef, w hi ch does n o t co n stitu te d ire c t re v iew , B lak e lya n d B o o k e r a re o f n o a v a il. M r . L ee a l s o cl ai m s he r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el at s ent enci ng. T o s ucce ed on an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , M r . L ee m us ts how thathi s couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entand thats uch def i ci ent per form ance pr ej udi ced hi m . Str i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668, 687 (1 9 8 4 ); U n ited S tate s v . O ra n g e , 4 4 7 F .3 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). F a ilu re to demonstr at e ei thera def i ci encyorpr ej udi ce i s fat al t o an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar gum ent . O r ange, 447 F. 3d at796- 97. M r. L ee arg u es th at his co u n sel w as d efici en t bec au se h e p erm itted M r.- 7 -

L ee’ s s ent ence t o be ca l cul at ed bas ed on fa ct s thatw er e notadmi tt ed t o orpr oved b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t to a ju ry– th e v e ry is s u e d ra is e d in B la k e ly an d B o o k e r. C on sequen t l y , M r. L ee essent i al l yargues that hi s coun sel w as i neffect i ve b ecause he di d notant i ci pat e the hol di ngs i n B l akel yand B ooker–cas es thatw er e hande d d o w n w e ll af

terM r. L e e w a s s e n ten c e d . T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t en tit le M r . L ee t o cl ai rvoy antcouns el . See U ni t ed St at es v. H arm s , 371 F. 3d 1208, 1212 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( “The Si xth A m endmentdoes notr equi r e couns el fora cr i m i nal defe ndantt o be cl ai rvoy ant . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C ar ew , 140 Fed. A pp’ x 15, 18 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng thatfai l ur e t o pr edi ctB ooker ’ s hol di ngs i s not o bjec tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le) . A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t M r L e e ’s c o u n s e l w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e is n o t r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . W e D E N Y a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e ap p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge