### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 13435

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o s . 0 1 - 0 2 5 6 7 - CV - A SG & 9 2 - 0 0 5 7 1 - CR - DTK P E T E R J . H I D A L G O , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 29, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A ft erdenyi ng P et erH i dal go ’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 m ot i on , the di stri ctcourt g ra n ted a c er ti fica te o f a p p ea lab il ity o n th e f o ll o w in g issu e: “W h eth erP etit io n er ’s F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o due pr oc e s s w a s vi ol a t e d be c a us e the gove r nm e nt a f f i r m a t i ve l y m i s r e pr e s e nt e d f a c t s t o the j ur y a nd the tr i a l c our ttha tthe g o v e r n m e n t k n e w o rr e a s o n a b ly s h o u ld h a v e k n o w n w e r e f a ls e .” T h e a lle g e d ly m i sr epre se nt ed fa ct s go t o the ext entof the po ss i bl e r educt i on i n sent ence that th r e e g o v e r n m e n t w itn e s s e s a g a in s t H id a lg o c o u ld r e c e iv e in e x c h a n g e f o rth e ir t e s t i mo n y a n d w h e th e ro n e o f th o s e w i tn e s s e s w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o f o r f e i ts o me p r o p e r ty h e h a d p u r c h a s e d w ith d ru g p r o c e e d s . T he i s s ue de s c r i be d i n the C O A i s nots ubj e c tt o r e vi e w i n thi s pr oc e e di ng b ecau se i tw as rai sed an d d eci d ed o n d i rectap p eal . S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . N yh u i s, 2 1 1 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “O n c e a m a tte rh a s b e e n d e c id e d a d v e r s e ly t o a defendanton di re ctappeal i tca nn otbe re -l i t i gat ed i n a col l at er al att ac k u nd er se ct i on 22 55 . ”) (i nt ernal m arks, ci t at i on and foo tno t e om i tt ed); M i l l s v. U ni t ed S t at es , 36 F . 3d 10 52 , 10 56 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ [P ] ri or di sposi t i on of a gr ound of

e r r oron di r e c tappe a l , i n m os tc a s e s , pr e c l ude s f ur the rr e vi e w i n a s ubs e que ntc ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ng. ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ow a n, 663 F . 2d 1034, 1035 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “T h is C o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d o n § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s to re consi der c l ai m s of e rr or ra i se d and di sposed of on di re ctappeal . ”) ; U ni t ed S t at esDec isions of the Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to the c lose of business on September 1 30, 1981, arebinding in this circuit. B onner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) . 3 v. John son, 61 5 F . 2d 11 25 , 11 28 (5th C i r. 19 80 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ W hen an i ss ue has a l r e a dy be e n de t e r m i ne d on di r e c tappe a l , a C our tne e d notr e c ons i de ri ton a S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 m o tio n .” ) ; B u c k e le w v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 7 5 F .2 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 7

– 1 8 ( 5 th C i r. 19 78 ) ( “ [A ] m att erneed no tbe re consi dere d o n a se ct i on 22 55 m ot i on i f i thas al re ady bee n d et erm i ned o n d i re ctappeal . ”) (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). 1 H i dal go ra i se d thi s C O A i ss ue du ri ng hi s di re ctappeal . In hi s i ni t i al bri ef and i n h i s c orre ct ed bri ef , fi l ed a y ea r a ft erthe ori gi nal on e, H i dal go ar gu ed that dur i ng c l os i ng s t a t e m e nt s the pr os e c ut orha d i nt e nt i ona l l y m i s l e d the j ur y a bout fact s b eari n g o n th e cred i b i l i ty o f A n th o n y L o p ez an d G i l b ert o M o ral es, s p e c if ic a lly th e s e n te n c e r e d u c tio n s th a t th e irc o o p e r a tio n w o u ld w in th e m . O r i gi na l A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r . a t45–47; C or r e c t e d A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r . a t45–47. H i da l go poi nt e d outtha tL ope z ’ s s e nt e nc e ha d be e n “ r e duc e d t o a s i ngl e m onth i n pr i s on” and t hat“ [t ] he se nt ence re du ct i on for M oral es w as al so re m arkabl y gener ou s. ” O rig in al A p p ellan t’ s B r. at 4 6 (e m p h as is o m itted ); se e a lso C o rr ec ted A p p ellan t’ s B r . a t45. In i t s resp o n se t o H i d al g o ’ s d i rectap p eal , th e g o v ern m en tan sw ered th o se s pe c i f i c a r gum e nt s . S e e A ppe l l e e ’ s B r . a t36–37. I tdi d notde ny tha tL ope z a ndIn a footnote, H idalg o now sug g ests that his evidenceabout Goy riena comprised a

new 2 issue which he c ould not have raised in his reply brief. That is a cha

ng e in position. Hidalgo’ s reply brief on direct a

ppeal presente d the evidenc e about Goy riena as evidence in support of the pre vious ly

raise d is su e , n ot a s a

new i ssu e . Se eAppe lla

nt’ s Reply

B r. at 9– 11 . Co ns ist e nt w ith that reply brief a nd with the phrasing

of the issue in the COA, wetreat it as one issue.

4 M oral es had rece i ved g ener ou s s ent ence re du ct i on s. Id. Inst ea d, i tar gu ed that H i da l go’ s c l a i m i s “ s pur i ous ” be c a us e , “ [ a ] tthe t i m e of [ H i da l go’ s ] tr i a l , the p ro secu t o r co u l d n o th av e k n o w n w h atR u l e 3 5 sen t en ce red u ct i o n s— i f an y— a d is tr ic t c o u r t m ig h t la te rc o n f e ro n L o p e z o rM o r a le s .” I d . a t 3 6 n .1 5 . A f t e rH i da l go f

i l e d hi s c or r e c t e d br i e f

a nd be f or e hi s r e pl y br i e f

w a s due , the s e n te n c e o f

th e th ir d g o v e r n m e n t w itn e s s , J o s e G o y r ie n a , w a s s u b s ta n tia lly re du ce d. In hi s r epl y bri ef , H i dal go po i nt ed t o thatdevel op m entas new evi dence i n s uppor tof

hi s a r gum e nt . S e e A ppe l l a nt ’ s R e pl y B r . a t9–11. H e e ve n a tt a c he d, as an ap p en d i x t o h i s b ri ef, th e g o v ern m en t ’ s R u l e 3 5 m o t i o n i n G o yri en a’ s case and t he court ’ s orderre du ci ng G oyri ena’ s s ent ence . Id. atA pp endi x 1 . H ence , H i dal go square l y r ai se d the i ss ue i n eac h o f hi s bri ef s on d i re ctappeal . Itw as be f or e us f orde c i s i on. 2 A f t e rhe a r i ng or a l a r gum e nti n H i da l go’ s di r e c tappe a l , thi s C our ti s s ue d a pu bl i shed op i ni on af

fi rm i ng hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . In i t s e nt i re ty, that opi ni on s t a t e d:

A p p e lla n ts P e te rH id a lg o , S a m u e l O liv e r a , a n d A n d r e s C a m p illo appeal thei r c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence s on m ul t i pl e f eder al drug and fi re arm5

c h a r g e s . F o ra v a r ie ty o f r e a s o n s , e a c h ap p e lla n t s e e k s to h a v e h is c o n v ic tio n o v e r tu r n e d a n d h is s e n te n c e v a c a te d . B a s e d u p o n th e r e c o r d in thi s c a s e , a nd ha vi ng c ons i de r e d the a r gum e nt s of the pa r t i e s , w e f

i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. W e f i nd one s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue m e r i t i ng di s c us s i on. A ppe l l a nt s c ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n e nha nc i ng the i rs e nt e nc e by tw o l e ve l s f or “ restrai n to f a v i ct i m ” u n d er § 3 A 1 . 3 o f th e F ed eral S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. T he vi c t i m i n thi s c a s e w a s a c o- c ons pi r a t orw ho w a s s us pe c t e d of be tr a y i ng the othe rde f

e nda nt s , a nd w ho r e

j oi ne d the c ons pi r a c y a f t e rhe w a s r e l e a s e d. T he appe l l a nt s a r gue tha t , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , a c o- c ons pi r a t orm a y notbe consi dere d a vi ct i m un der thi s provi si on i n the gu i del i nes. W e di sa gree , fi nd i ng thatthe gu i del i ne prov i si on al l ow i ng enhancem entfor r es tra i ntof a vi ct i m cont em pl at es the re stra i ntof any vi ct i m , co-c on spi ra t or or ot herw i se . A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm th e ap p el l an t s’ co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. AF F I R ME D. U n ite d S ta te s v . H id a lg o , 1 9 7 F .3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . If the panel of thi s C ou rtthathear d H i dal go ’ s di re ctappeal had n oti nt ended t o d ec i de al l of the i ss ues r ai se d i n the appeal , i tw ou l d h ave s ai d so. If i tbel i eved th a t f u r th e rf a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t w a s n e e d e d , a s H id a lg o n o w c o n te n d s , it w o u ld ha ve s a i d s o. I tdi d not . I ns t e a d, the pa ne l a f f i r m e d H i da l go’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence w i tho utre se rvat i on . T he op i ni on m akes cl ea r thatthe ot her i ss ues r ai se d b y th e ap p e lla n ts w e r e d e c id e d a g a in s t th e m a n d , in th e p a n e l’s v ie w , d id n o t m e r it di s c us s i on. T he r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha tthe di r e c tappe a l pa ne l de c l i ne d t o de c i de a ny i s s ue , a nd gi ve n tha tH i da l go ha d s qua r e l y r a i s e d the i s s ue de s c r i be d i n the C O A , th e r e is e v e r y in d ic a tio n th a t th e p a n e l d id d e c id e it. T he r e i s a l s o e vi de nc e be y ond the opi ni on on di r e c tappe a l tha tthi s i s s ueIn h is obje c tio ns to t hemag istratejudg e ’s repo rt and re c omm e ndatio n c on c e rninghis 3 § 2255 motion, Hidalgo c ontended f or the fir st tim e that the prosecutor mislead the jury about Goy riena ’s credibility

by stating that Goy

riena would be forfeitingsome proper ty , which he never f orfe ite d. Th is i s additi on al e vide nc esu pp or tingHi dalg o’ s a

rgument a

bo ut t hesing le issue described in the COA. It is not a new issue that wa s not considere d duringthe direc t appeal. Hence , it does not chang e our a nalysis. 6 w a s de c i de d. H i da l go f i l e d a “ P e t i t i on f

orR e he a r i ng a nd S ugge s t i on f orR e he a r i ng E n B a nc ” tha tf

oc us e d e xc l us i ve l y on thi s i s s ue . S e e P e t i t i on a t1–15. T he pe t i t i on r e c i t e d the s e nt e nc e r e duc t i ons f orM or a l e s , L ope z , a nd G oy r i e na , i d. a t6–8, 10, a n d a r g u e d th a t th e “P a n e l’s s ile n c e in th e f a c e o f [ th e p r o s e c u to r ’s ] c o n d u c t . . . e f f e c t i ve l y s a nc t i ons tha tc onduc t , ” i d. a t3. T he pe t i t i on not e d tha t“ H i da l go appe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i on t o thi s C our t , r a i s i ng num e r ous i s s ue s , i nc l udi ng the pr os e c ut or ’ s i m pr ope rc l os i ng a r gum e nta nd i l l e ga l pl e a ba r ga i ni ng pr a c t i c e s . ” I d. a t 9 . T h e p e titio n w a s d e n ie d . H i da l go c a nnotnow c onvi nc i ngl y c l a i m tha tthi s i s s ue w a s notde c i de d on di r e c tappe a l . H e r a i s e d the i s s ue on di r e c tappe a l , the gove r nm e ntr e s ponde d by a ddr e s s i ng the i s s ue , a nd a pa ne l of thi s C our tc onc l ude d tha tthe r e ha d be e n no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . T h e i s s u e wa s d e c i d e d , a n d th a td e c i s i o n p r e c l u d e s r e v i e w n o w. 3 S e e N y hui s , 211 F . 3d a t1343; M i l l s , 36 F . 3d a t1056; R ow a n, 663 F . 2d a t1035; J o h n s o n , 6 1 5 F .2 d a t 1 1 2 8 ; B u c k e le w , 5 7 5 F .2 d a t 5 1 7

– 1 8 . M o reo v er, H i d al g o ’ s att em p tt o su g g estth atth e arg u m en th e rai sed an d l o st on di r e c tappe a l ( a c ha l l e nge t o the pr os e c ut or ’ s c l os i ng s t a t e m e nt s ) i s di f f e r e ntAs discussed below, H idalg o’s brief addre ssed an additional issue not covere d by the 4 COA, and westruck those portions of the brief. In doing so, w e arguably struck too much, beca use westruck Hidalg o’s argument that the COA issue bef ore this Court was never de cided on dire c t a pp e al. Wehavea dd

re sse d th at argument in f

ullin t hisop ini on , a

nd wedo no t th ink

it nece ssary to “un-strike”that portion of the brie f or to ask theg overnment to respond. For the rea sons we havestated the a rgument is meritless.

7 fr om the ar gu m enthe no w ra i se s ( a D ue P roce ss chal l enge) i s notpers uasi ve. 4 F i r s t , the a r gum e ntm a de on di r e c tappe a l i s m a t e r i a l l y i de nt i c a l t o the a r gum e nt m a de on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . O n di r e c tr e vi e w , H i da l go a r gue d tha t“ the pr os e c ut or i nt e nt i ona l l y m i s l e d the j ur y a boutw ha the kne w , orr e a s ona bl y s houl d ha ve kn ow n, w as go i ng t o eventual l y t ake pl ac e w hen t he coop er at i ng w i tness es r e c e i ve d the i rpr om i s e d s e nt e nc e r e duc t i ons . ” O r i gi na l A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r . a t45; C orre ct ed A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at45 . T he i m po rt ance of thi s, H i dal go ar gu ed, i s that

“ [ t ] he j ur y i n the i ns t a ntc a s e w a s . . . m i s l e a d a s t o the f a c t s be a r i ng on the cr edi bi l i ty of key w i tness es . ” O ri gi nal A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at47 (quo t at i on om i tt ed); C o rrect ed A p p el l an t ’ s B r. at4 6 (sam e). In h i s b ri ef i n th ese co l l at eral p ro ceed i n g s, the he a di ng H i da l go ha s a tt a c he d t o hi s a r gum e nti s “ T he I nt e nt i ona l M i s l e a di ng of the J ur y . ” A ppe l l a nt ’ s § 2255 B r . a t30. T ha ts e c t i on of hi s br i e f be gi ns w i th the a s s e r t i on tha t : “ T he gove r nm e ntc a nnotde ny the w or ds the pr os e c ut ors poke t o the j ur y , e nc our a gi ng the j ur y t o be l i e ve the tr i a l t e s t i m ony of G oy r i e na , M or a l e s a nd L ope z be c a us e , a l though c onvi c t e d f e l ons a l l , e ve n w i th f

ul l , hone s tc oope r a t i on, th e y w o u ld s till b e r e q u ir e d to s e r v e 3 0 y e a r s , 2 0 y e a r s a n d 1 0 y e a r s - to - lif e inWe rec ognize, as noted above , that Hidalg o has more f acts at his dispos al now than he 5 had when h efirs t f

ile d h is dire c t a

pp e al brie fs . N on e the le ss, thefac ts t hat hehad when h efirs t fi le d th os ebrie fs—th esentenc ere du c tio ns of L op e z an d M orale s—

weree qu ally

availa bleto su pp or t e ith e r a rgument. Th ea dditi on al f a c ts a bo ut G oy ri e na ’s sentenc ere du c tio n a nd failureto 8 pr i s on r e s pe c t i ve l y . ” I d. T he br i e f the n r e c i t e s the s e nt e nc e r e duc t i ons the w i tne s s e s e nj oy e d a nd G oy r i e na ’ s f a i l ur e t o f

or f e i tpr ope r ty . N e xti ttur ns t o a d is c u s s io n o f

M o o r e v . S ta te , 6 2 3 S o . 2 d 6 0 8 ( F la . 4 th D C A 1 9 9 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , a di sc ussi on thatw as cutfr om the di re ctappeal bri ef s a nd past ed i nt o the col l at er al proceedi ng s bri ef

. C om pare O ri gi nal A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at46 –4 7 & C orre ct ed A p p el l an t ’ s B r. at4 5

– 4 6 w i th A p p el l an t ’ s § 2 2 5 5 B r. at3 4

– 3 5 . If th ere i s a di ff er ence betw ee n the ar gu m entthatH i dal go i nt ended t o m ake on d i re ctappeal a nd the a r gum e nthe m a ke s now , i ti s s l i ghti nde e d. S e c ond, e ve n i f

the a r gum e nt s a r e di f

f e r e nt , H i da l go c a nnotr e pa c ka ge the s a m e f a c ts a s a d if

f e r e n t a r g u m e n t a n d c la im th a t h is n e w , d if f e r e n t a r g u m e n t c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n r a is e d b e f o r e . W h e th e rh e p a c k a g e s h is a r g u m e n t a s a c h a lle n g e to the prosecut or’ s c l osi ng st at em ent s ( as he sa ys he di d o n d i re ctappeal ) or a s an o th erD u e P ro ce ss v io lati o n (a s h e s ay s h e is d o in g n o w ), th e h ea rt o f H id alg o ’s a r gum e nti s tha tthe pr os e c ut orm i s l e d the j ur y a boutthe c r e di bi l i ty of gove r nm e nt w i tne s s e s by m i s r e pr e s e nt i ng the be ne f i t s thos e w i tne s s e s c oul d e xpe c ti n e xc ha nge for t es t i fy i ng . W i th the fa ct s he a ss ert ed i n att em pt i ng t o m ake outthe form er arg u m en t , h e sh o u l d h av e al so m ad e o u tth e l att er. H i d al g o ’ s fai l u re t o d o so 5forf

eit, which Hidalg o asser

ted in his reply

brief on direct a

ppeal a nd in his objections to the mag istrate judg e’s report a nd rec ommendation in these proc eeding s, would further support either argument e qu ally . H idalg o h a s o ff e re d n o s ound

the or y a s towhy

hec ould raise—o r “ attempt to raise,”as he w ould say

—one argument but not the other. 9 r e s u lts in p r o c e d u r a l b a r . S e e L y n n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “U n d e rth e p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u lt ru le , a d e f

e n d a n t g e n e r a lly m ustadvance an avai l abl e c hal l enge t o a cr i m i nal conv i ct i on or se nt ence on di re ct appe a l ore l s e the de f

e nda nti s ba r r e d f

r om pr e s e nt i ng tha tc l a i m i n a § 2255 p r o c e e d in g .” ) . T o sum m ar i ze , before thi s C ou rti s the si ng l e C O A i ss ue i nv ol vi ng an al l eged D ue P roce ss vi ol at i on . B ec ause thati ss ue w as ra i se d and deci ded o n d i re ct appe a l , w e w i l l notde c i de i ta ga i n now . S e e N y hui s , 211 F . 3d a t1343; M i l l s , 36 F . 3d a t1056; R ow a n, 663 F . 2d a t1035; J ohns on, 615 F . 2d a t1128; B uc ke l e w , 575 F . 2 d at5 1 7

– 1 8 . If w e w ere t o accep tH i d al g o ’ s co n t en t i o n th atth i s D u e P ro cess a r gum e nti s ne w , w e w oul d s t i l l de ny r e l i e f be c a us e H i da l go w oul d be p r o c e d u r a lly b a r r e d f

r o m r a is in g th e a r g u m e n t n o w . S e e L y n n , 3 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 4 . O ne m ore poi ntdese rves m ent i on . H i dal go bri ef ed a B ra dy i ss ue thatw as n o t i n clu d ed in th e C O A . A ctin g o n th e g o v er n m en t’ s m o ti o n , w e s tru ck H id alg o ’s di sc ussi on of thati ss ue fr om hi s i ni t i al bri ef . A ft erthe go vernm entfi l ed i t s a nsw er bri ef , H i dal go added a foot no t e i n h i s r epl y bri ef st at i ng thatthe go vernm enthad

“ ope ne d the door ” t o the i s s ue . H e a s ke d thi s C our tt o r e c ons i de ri t s or de rs tr i ki ng10

th e i s s u e f

r o m h i s b r i e f

. Atn o t i m e d i d Hi d a l g o e v e rr e q u e s ta n e x p a n d e d C OA fr om thi s C ou rt . W e w i l l no tconsi der the addi t i on al i ss ue. S ee M urra y v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 5 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 51 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ [W ] e hol d thati n an ap p e a l b r o u g h t b y a n u n s u c c e s s f u l h a b e a s p e titio n e r , ap p e lla te r e v ie w is lim ite d to the i ss ues s peci fi ed i n the C O A . ”) . AF F I RME D.