# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 37 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

St acey Sell ne r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 9, 2 01 4
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 15 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fed eral pr is on er St acey Sel ln er fil ed a pr o se m ot io n to va cat e he r co nv ic ti on

pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, al le gi ng th at he r at to rn ey ha d fai le d to fil e a no ti ce of

ap pe al as req ue st ed

. Befo re th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d on th at m ot i on , Sel ln er fil ed

an ot he r § 22 55 m ot io n rai si ng a di ffer en t cl ai m

. Th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d

Sel ln er’s fir st § 22 55 m ot io n on th e m eri ts wit ho ut an ev id en ti ar y he ari ng an d

di sm is se d h er s eco nd m ot io n a s “ se co nd or s uc ces si ve .” W e rev ers e an d re m an d.I.

Sel ln er pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rac y t o d i s t rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e m et ha m

ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 6. Ju dg m en t was en te red

on Marc h 8 , 20 13

. Her at to rn ey di d n ot fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al

.

In Ju ly 20 13

, Sel ln er file d a pr o s e m ot io n t o v acat e h er s en te nc e p ur su an t t o

28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, al le gi ng fo ur gr ou nd s of in ef f ect iv e as si st an ce of co un se l,

in cl ud in g co un se l’s fai lu re to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al as req u e s te d. In a writ te n

st at em en t, Sel ln er al le ge d th at fo l l o w i ng se nt en ci ng sh e to ld he r at to rn ey th at sh e

“ wan te d hi m to ap pe al ,” bu t th a t h e r a t to rn ey res po nd ed th at th ere was no th in g he

co ul d do

. Sel ln er’s at to rn ey su bm it te d an af f i d a v it in res po ns e, st at in g th at whe n
Sel ln er as ke d hi m ab ou t fil in g an ap pe al , h e to ld he r th at he wou ld fil e an ap pe al if

sh e in si st ed

, b u t t ha t Sel ln er de ci de d to fo rg o an ap pe al aft er co un se l ex pl ai ne d to

Sel ln er t ha t s he ha d wai ve d h er ri gh t t o a pp eal

.

In Nov em

be r 20 13

, Sel ln er fil ed an ot he r pr o se § 22 55 m ot io n, al le gi ng a
vi ol at io n un de r All ey ne v. Uni te d St at es , 1 3 3 S

. Ct

. 21 51 (2 01 3)

. The reaf te r, th e
di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e Ju ly § 22 55 m ot io n on th e m eri ts wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary
he ari ng an d th e Nov em be r § 22 55 m ot io n as b a r r e d b y th e Ant it erro ris m an d

Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act o f 1 99 6 (AEDPA) as “ se co nd or su cces si ve .” The

di st ric t co ur t g ran te d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on bo th m ot io ns

.

On ap pe al

, Sel ln er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve he ld an ev id en ti ary
he ari ng be fo re ru li ng on he r Ju ly 20 13 cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l fo r

fai li ng to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al an d th at he r Nov em be r § 2 25 5 m ot io n s ho ul d h av e
be en co ns tru ed as a m ot io n to am en d he r Ju ly § 22 55 m ot io n. At or al arg um en t, th e

go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed th at th e cas e sh ou ld be rem an de d fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on

th e cl ai m of fai lu re to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al an d su gg es te d th at we rem an d th e en ti re

cas e fo r th e sa ke of ju di ci al eco no m y

.

-2

-II.

W e rev ie w th e de ni al of an ev id en ti ary he ari ng fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Tho m as
v. Unit ed St at es , 73 7 F.3 d 12 02

, 12 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ Evi de nt ia ry he ari ng s on 28

U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io ns are pr efer red

, an d th e ge ne ral ru le is th at a he ari ng is

ne ces sa ry pr io r to th e m ot io n’s di sp os it io n if a fact ua l di sp ut e e x i s ts .” Id

. “ The

di st ric t co ur t is no t pe rm it te d to m ak e a c r e di bi li ty de te rm in at io n on th e affi da vi ts

al on e.” Id

. at 12 06

. It m ay , ho wev er, de ny an ev id en ti ar y h e a r i n g i f “ (1 ) th e [p et it io ne r’s] al le ga ti on s, acce pt ed as tru e, wou ld no t en ti tl e th e [p et it io ne r] to rel ie f,

or (2 ) th e al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed as tru e be cau se th ey are co nt rad ic te d by th e

reco rd

, in h e r e nt ly in cred ib le

, or co nc lu si on s rat he r th an st at em en ts of fact .” Id

. at

12 06 -0 7 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Bu st er v. Uni te d St at es , 44 7 F.3 d 1 13 0,

11 32 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

An a t t o r n e y’s fai lu re to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al up on th e cl ie nt ’s req ue st

co ns ti tu te s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, an d no sp eci fic sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e is

req ui red

. W at so n v. Uni te d St at es , 49 3 F.3 d 96 0, 96 3- 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Ro e

v. Fl or es -Ort eg a, 52 8 U.S. 4 70 , 4 77 , 4 83 -8 4 (2 00 0) ). Eve n if th e cl ie n t waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe al as pa rt of a pl ea agre em en t, preju di ce is pres um ed if th e cl ie nt as ke d

hi s at to rn ey

to fil e a no ti ce of

ap pe al an d t he att or ne y

di d n ot do so . Id. at 96 4. As

reco un te d ab ov e, Sel ln er al le ge s th at sh e in fo rm ed he r at to rn ey th at sh e “ wan te d

. . .
to ap pe al .” Sel ln er’s at to rn ey ’s c o n f l i c ti ng affi da vi t st at es th at Sel ln er de ci de d no t

to ap pe al

.

W e rece nt ly ad dr es se d a si m il ar si tu at io n in Fran co v. Uni te d St at es , 76 2 F.3 d

76 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). In Fran co , th e pe ti ti on er su bm it te d an affi da vi t cl ai m in g th at hi s

at to rn ey di d no t e x p l a i n t o hi m th e ad va nt ag es an d di sa dv an ta ge s of ap pe al in g an d

th at he ha d ask ed hi s at to rn ey to fil e a no ti ce of app eal

, bu t hi s att or ne y fai le d to do

so

. Id

. at 76 4. In co nt ras t, th e at t o r n e y st at ed in an affi da vi t th at he ha d co ns ul te d

wit h th e pe ti ti on er reg ard in g th e m eri ts of a n a p p e a l

, th at he di d no t reca ll th e

-3

-pe ti ti on er req ue st in g an ap pe a l

, a n d th at he al way s fil ed an ap pe al whe n on e was

req ue st ed . Id. We hel d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n wh en it cred it ed

th e at to rn ey ’s affi da vi t ov er th e pe ti ti on er’s wit ho ut fir st ho ld in g an ev id en ti ary
he ari ng . Id. at 76 5.

As in F r a nc o, Sel ln er’s writ te n st at em en t is jus t as cred ib le on it s face as he r

at to rn ey ’s a f

f i d a v it

. Sel ln er as se rte d th at aft er se nt en ci ng , sh e tri ed to as k he r

at to rn ey ab ou t an ap pe al , b ut he refu se d t o d is cu ss th e m at te r wit h h er. Sh e fu rth er

av erre d t ha t s he to ld he r at to rn ey th at sh e “ wan te d . . . to ap pe al ,” bu t h e res po nd ed

th at th ere was no th in g he cou ld do

. As in Fran co , Sel ln er’s w rit te n st at em en t is no t

se lf- co nt rad ic to ry an d it co nt ai ns “ si m il ar sp eci fic it y ” as he r at to rn ey ’s affi da vi t

reg ard in g “ whe n th es e al le ge d co nv ers at io ns to ok pl ace (o r di d no t ta ke pl ace) .” Id

.
at 76 4. In th e ab se nc e of an ev id en ti ary h eari ng , S el ln er’s co un se l’s st at em en t th at

Sel ln er agre ed no t to fil e an ap pe al is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at Sel ln er’s

al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed as tru e. See Kos ke la v. Uni te d St at es , 23 5 F.3 d 11 48

, 11 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by

d i s mi s si ng th e pe ti ti on er’s § 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary h eari ng whe n t h e

pe ti ti on er at te st ed th at he to ld hi s at to rn ey to su bp oe na th ree al ib i wit ne ss es , an d th e

at to rn ey su bm it te d an affi da vi t de nyin g th a t t h e pe ti ti on er m ad e su ch a req ue st ).

Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n it di sm is se d Sel ln er’s cl a i m of

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l ba se d on he r co un se l’s fai lu re to fil e a no ti ce of

ap pe al

.

III.

Und er AEDPA, a fed eral pr is on er m us t rece iv e cert ifi cat io n fro m th e co ur t of

ap pe al s to fil e a “ se co nd or su cces si ve ” § 22 55 m ot io n. 28 U.S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5 ( h)

. AEDPA do es no t de fin e “ se co nd or su cces si ve ,” bu t we ha ve reco gn iz ed th at n ot

ev ery § 22 55 m ot io n fil ed se co nd in ti m e req ui res cert ifi cat io n. See DeRo o v. Uni te d

St at es , 70 9 F.3 d 12 42

, 12 44 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (h ol di ng th at a pe ti ti on er’s § 22 55 m ot io n

-4

-pr es en ti ng cl ai m s th at ha d no t y et ari se n at th e ti m e of hi s fir st § 22 55 m ot io n was no t

“ se co nd or su cces si ve ” fo r pu rp os es of AEDPA); Fl or es v. Un it ed St at es , No. 97

- 80 80

, 19 97 W L 52 55 96

, at *1 (8 th Ci r. Aug

. 26

, 19 97 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed )
(h ol di ng th at a pe ti ti on er’s § 2 2 5 5 moti on fil ed aft er a pr io r m ot io n ha d be en
d i s miss ed wit ho ut pr ejud ic e di d no t qu al ify as “ se co nd or su cces si ve ”); se e a l s o

Cas tro v. Uni te d St at es , 54 0 U.S. 37 5

, 3 8 3 (2 00 3) (h ol di ng th at whe n a co ur t

rech arac te riz es a m ot io n fil ed by a pr o se pe ti ti on er as a § 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut

warn in g, a su bs eq ue nt § 2 2 55 m ot io n fil ed by pe ti ti on er is no t “ se co nd or

su cces si ve ”). W he th er a § 22 55 m ot io n is “ se co nd or su cces si ve ” un de r AEDPA is

a qu es ti on of la w th at we rev ie w de no vo

. See W i l l i a ms v

. Nor ris

, 46 1 F.3 d 99 9,

10 01 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Sel ln er arg ue s th at he r pr o se Nov em be r § 22 55 m ot io n sh ou ld ha ve be en

co ns tru ed as a m ot io n to am en d he r Ju ly § 22 55 m ot io n. Fed eral Ru le o f Ci vi l

Pro ced ur e 15 (a) go ve rn s req ue st s to am en d § 225 5 m ot io ns be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t

en te rs jud gm en t. Uni te d St at es v. Harri so n, 46 9 F.3 d 12 16

, 12 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). A

pa rty m ay am en d wit h th e co ur t’s le av e, whi ch sh ou ld be “ free ly gi ve [n ]

. . . whe n jus ti ce so req ui res .” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 15 (a)( 2)

. Mo ti on s to am en d f i l e d b e f o r e th e
di st ric t co ur t ren de rs jud gm en t are no t ba rred by AEDPA as “ se co nd or su cces si ve .”

Jo hn so n v. Uni te d Stat es , 19 6 F.3d 80 2, 80 5 (7t h Ci r. 19 99 ); se e al so Harri so n, 46 9

F.3 d at 12 17 (implying th at m ot io ns to am en d § 22 55 m ot io ns st il l pe nd in g be fo re th e
di st ric t co ur t ar e n ot ba rred by A EDPA).

W e ha ve no t pr ev io us ly ad dr es se d whe th er a pr o se § 22 55 m ot io n, fil ed be fo re

a ru li ng on th e pe ti ti on er’s fir st § 22 55 m ot io n, is ba rred by AEDPA as “ se co nd or

su cces si ve ,” or whet he r th e se co nd m ot io n sh ou ld in st ead be co ns tru ed as a m ot io n

to am en d. In Ch in g v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 98 F.3d 17 4, 1 77 (2 d Cir. 2 00 2) , th e Sec on d

Ci rcu it he ld th at “ whe n a § 22 55 m ot io n is fil ed be fo re ad jud ic at io n of an in it ia l
§ 22 55 m ot io n i s c o mp l e te

, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld co ns tru e th e se co nd § 22 55

m ot io n as a m ot io n to am en d t h e p e n d in g § 22 55 m ot io n.” W rit in g fo r th e co ur t,

-5

-th en -J ud ge So to m ay or reas on ed th at fo r a § 22 55 m ot io n to be “ se co nd or su cces si ve ”

fo r pu rp os es of AEDPA, th ere m us t be so m e fir st § 22 55 m ot io n th at was ad jud ic at ed

on th e m eri ts or di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e. Id

. Si m il arl y , in W oo ds v. Care y , 52 5 F.3 d

88 6, 88 9- 90 (9 th Ci r. 20 08 ), th e Nin th Ci rcu it

, rel y in g on Ch in g, he ld th at whe n a pr o

se pe ti ti on er fil es a se co nd § 22 54 m ot io n be fo re t h e d is tri ct co ur t ru le s on th e

pe ti ti on er’s fir st § 22 54 m ot io n, th e se co nd m ot io n sh ou ld be co ns tru ed as a m ot io n

to am en d th e fir st

. The Nin th Ci rcu it em ph as i z e d t h a t pr o se m ot io ns are to be

co ns tru ed li be ral ly an d th at if th e pe ti ti o n e r ha d be en rep res en te d by co un se l, th en

th e se co nd § 22 54 m ot io n cert ai nl y wou ld ha ve be en fil ed as a m ot io n to am en d. Id

. The Elev en th Ci rcu it reac he d a si m il ar co nc lu si on in Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 18 5

F. App ’x 91 7, 91 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ). In W il li am s, th e pr o se pe ti ti on ers

fil ed a “ Mo ti on fo r Dete rm in at io n of F e d e r a l J ur is di ct io n” whi le th ei r fir st § 22 55

m ot io n w a s s t i l l pe nd in g be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t. Id

. at 91 8. Alt ho ug h th e

pe ti ti on ers de ni ed th at th ei r se co nd m ot io n was fil ed pu rs ua nt to § 22 55

, th e Elev en th

Ci rcu it he ld th at on ly § 22 55 co ul d of fer th em th e rel ie f th ey so ug ht

. Id

. at 91 8- 19

. Rel y in g on Ch in g, th e Elev en th Ci rcu it he ld th at “ [a]s t he ir § 22 55 m ot io n was sti ll

pe nd in g, th ei r su bs eq ue nt m ot io n sh ou ld no t ha ve be en co ns id ered a su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n, b ut in st ead a m ot io n t o a m en d t he ir § 22 55 m ot io n.” Id. at 91 9.

W e no w joi n ou r si st er ci rcu it s an d h o ld th at whe n a pr o se pe ti ti on er fil es a

se co nd § 22 55 m ot io n whi le he r fir st § 22 55 m ot io n is st il l pe nd in g be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t, th e se co nd m ot io n is no t ba rred by AEDPA an d sh ou ld be co ns tru ed as a

m ot io n to am en d. “ A do cu m en t fil ed pr o se is ‘to be li be ral ly co ns tru ed .’ ” Eric ks on

v. Pard us , 55 1 U.S. 89

, 94 (2 00 7) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng Est el le v. Gam bl e, 42 9 U.S.

97

, 10 6 (1 97 6) ). Fu rth erm or e, “ [a] ke y fact or in de te r mi n in g whe th er a pe ti ti on
sh ou ld be co ns id ered ‘seco nd or su cces si ve ’ is whe th er a pr io r pe t i t i o n ha s be en
ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts .” Nim s v. Aul t, 25 1 F.3 d 69 8, 70 4- 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (Bye,

J., di ss en ti ng ) (ci ti ng Eva ns v. S mi t h

, 22 0 F.3 d 30 6, 32 5 (4 th Ci r. 20 00 ); Jo hn so n,

19 6 F.3 d at 80 5) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Gon zal ez-R iv era, 53 5 F. App ’x 95

, 96 (3 d

Ci r. 20 13 ) (p er cu ria m ); Cl ark v. Uni te d St at es , 76 4 F.3 d 65 3, 65 8- 60 (6 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

-6

-At t he ti m e Sel ln er fi le d he r Nov em be r § 22 55 m ot io n, he r Ju ly § 22 55 m ot io n h ad

no t be en ad

jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts or di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e. Thu s, he r Nov em be r § 22 55 m ot io n sh ou ld no t ha ve be en di sm is se d as “ se co nd or su cces si ve ” bu t in st ead

sh ou ld ha ve be en li be ral ly con st ru ed as a m ot io n t o a m en d h er J ul y § 2 25 5 m ot io n.

IV.

W e rev ers e an d rem an d fo r an ev i d e n t i a ry he ari ng th e is su e whe th er Sel ln er

req ue st ed th at he r at to rn ey ap pe al

, an d w e d i r e c t th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns tru e th e

Nov em be r § 2 25 5 m ot io n a s a m ot io n t o a m en d t he Ju ly § 22 55 m ot io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-