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

### A p ril17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT EUG ENE V ELAR DE, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. L A R R Y R E I D , W ar den, C ent enni al Co rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty ; J OHN SU T H E R S, A t t orneyG ener al of the St at e of Col or ado, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1545 ( D . C . N o . 0 3 - C V - 0 0 6 1 5 - R P M)

(D . C o lo .)

OR DER DENY I NG A CERTI FI CATE OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. E ug ene V el arde, a C olor ado st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th byt he di s tr i ctcourt , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . V el ar de cha l l enges hi s A pr i l 9, 1993 convi ct i on, fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al , for di s tr i but i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance and cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . H e w as s ent ence d underC ol or ado’ s habi tual cr i m i nal s t atut e t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . V el ar de s oughtr el i ef on di r ectand col l at er al appea l i n C ol or adoT he A nti t err ori sm and E ffecti ve D eat h P enaltyA ctcon dit i on s a 1 pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o appea l a deni al of habe as r el i ef unde r§ 2254 upon a gr antof (c o n tin u e d ...) - 2 - s t at e court befor e br i ngi ng a t i m el y habea s pet i t i on i n fede r al court . A l though he so u g h t re lief

o n a d d iti o n a l g ro u n d s in h is h a b e a s p e tit io n to th e d istric t co u rt, V el ar de l i m i t s hi s appl i cat i on forC O A fr om t hi s courtt o tw o cl ai m s : ( 1) H e w as i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtof conf r ont at i on w hen the tr i al courtadmi t t ed t apes r ecor ded bya D rug E nfor cementA gency( “D E A ”) i nform ant , N or m a Lopez, of the cha r ged drug tr ans act i on; and ( 2) H i s t r i al couns el ’ s per form ance w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entdue t o couns el ’ s deci s i on not t o i m peac h t he cr edi bi l i tyof Lopez. A w r i tof habe as corpus as t o ei therof V el ar de’ s cl ai m s m aynoti s s ue u n less the s tat e c o u rtadjud icati o n : “(1) resu lt ed in a d ec isi o n that w as c o n tr ary t o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or( 2) r es ul t ed i n a deci s i on t hatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the e v iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d). I n o rd e r to iss u e a C O A , w e m u st c o n c lu d e th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) th e p e tit io n sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re so lv e d in a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 a C O A . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). - 3 - W e turn fi r s tt o V el ar de’ s ar gum entthatthe admi s s i on of the Lopez re c o rd in g s v io la te d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t u n d e r t h e C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e . A l th o u g h th e g o v e r n m e n ti n t e n d e d fo rL o p e z t o t e s t i f y, s h e w a s m u r d e r e d d a ys aft er the char ged tr ans act i on. A ccor di ngl y , i tw as for ced t o r el yon t ape rec o rdin g s o f th e tran sac ti o n that w ere m ad e b yL o p ez v ia a D E A -i n stal led w ir e tra n sm itt e r. W e a re h a m stru n g in o u r re v iew o f th is c laim b yV e lar d e ’s fa ilu re to i nclude i n the r ecord t he tr i al cou rt ’s w ri t t en o rderden y i ng his m oti on t o sup press th e re c o rd in g s. H o w e v e r, th e tra n sc rip t o f th e c o u rt’s p re trial d isc u ss io n w ith couns el i ndi cat es the courtbel i eved the r ecor di ngs t o be hea r s ay , butcons i der ed th e m su fficie n tlyre liab le, a s “ re a l-w o rld tra n sa c tio n s [ th a t] h a v e th e rin g o f tru th t o them, ” t o be admi t t ed underC ol or ado’ s r es i dual hear s ayexce pt i on. See C ol o. R . E vi d. 807. O n di r ectappea l the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed on al t ernat e gr ounds , hol di ng thatthe r ecor di ngs w er e admi s s i bl e as r es ges t ae e v id e n c e . R e ly in g o n P e o p le v . Q u in tan a , 8 8 2 P .2 d 1 3 6 6 (C o lo . 1 9 9 4 ) a n d P e o p le v. A rnol d, 826 P. 2d 365 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1991) , t he courtof appe al s det erm i ned th a t th e re c o rd in g s w e re n o t h e a rsa y , b e c a u se th e y“ w e re n o t o ffe re d fo r th e ir truth, butr athert o i l l us tr at e the cha r act erof the cha r ged cr i m e – di s tr i but i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e. ”- 4 -

“ I n c o n s i d e r i n g a Co n f r o n t a t i o n Cl a u s e c l a i m o n h a b e a s . . . we r e v i e w a stat e c o u rtd ec isi o n b yasse ssing w h ethe r i t i s rea so n ab lysu p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd and w hetheri t s l egal anal y s i s i s cons t i tut i onal l ys ound. ” Paxt on v. W ar d, 199 F. 3d 1197, 1209 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . “A s a gene r al m at t er , fede r al habea s corpus r el i ef doe s notl i e t o r evi ew s t at e l aw ques t i ons aboutthe admi s s i bi l i tyof evi dence , and fe der al court s m aynoti nt er fer e w i th s t at e evi dent i aryrul i ngs unl es s [they ] r ender ed the tr i al s o fundament al l yunfai ras t o cons t i tut e a de ni al of fe d era l con sti tuti o n al ri g h ts. ” M o o re v . M arr, 2 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Sever al as pect s of the r ecor di ngs ’ admi s s i on as r es ges t ae e vi dence gi ve us p au se, i n clud ing : ( 1 ) th e tri al co u rt ’s fa il u re to instruc t th e jurythat theyw ere b e in g a d m itte d o n ly as re s g e s ta e , s e e Q u in ta n a , 8 8 2 P .2 d a t 1 3 7 9 (E ri c k s o n , J ., concurr i ng) ( not i ng thatr es ges t ae w as notati s s ue befor e the tr i al court ) ; ( 2) t he fac tthatthe r ecor di ngs w er e made byan i nform antw i th a mot i ve t o di r ectthe conver s at i ons ; and ( 3) t he hea vyr el i ance pl ace d on the r ecor di ngs as di r ect evi dence of the cha r ged cr i m e. N everthel es s , w e maynotover tur n the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o admi tthe r ecor di ngs abs ents om e s how i ng thatthei radmi s s i on vi ol at ed V el ar de’ s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , and no s uch s how i ng has been made. R ather , the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s ’ hol di ng t hatt he r ecor di ngs w er e admi s s i bl e as r es ges t ae evi dence i s a r eas onabl e cons truct i on of Q ui nt ana. T her e i s no ques t i on thatthe- 5 -

r ecor di ngs ar e “l i nked i n t i m e and c i r cumst ance s w i th the cha r ged cr i m e, ” and coul d be us ed t o pr ovi de the j ury“w i th a ful l and compl et e under s t andi ng of the e v e n ts s u rr o u n d in g th e c ri m e .” Q u in ta n a , 8 8 2 P .2 d a t 1 3 7 3 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). V el ar de ci t es no Supr eme C our torotherfede r al cas e thatcas t s doubton Q ui nt ana, norar e w e aw ar e of a nySupr eme C our tcas e def i ni ng the cons t i tut i onal p ara m eters o f th e a d m issi b il ityo f re s g estae ev iden ce . A s a g en era l m att er, cont empora neous r ecor ded s t at ement s have l ong been c ons i der ed admi s s i bl e as “verbal act s ” of the dec l ar ant . See M ut . L i fe I ns . C o. v. H i l l m on, 145 U . S. 285, 296 ( 1892) ( “Such dec l ar at i ons ar e r egar ded as verbal act s , and ar e as compet ent as anyothert es t i m ony , w hen r el evantt o the i s s ue. T hei rtruth orfal s i tyi s an i nqui ryforthe j ury . ”) . I n s hor t , w e ca n di s cern no bas i s t o gr antV el ar de C O A on th i s c l a i m. W e nextturn t o V el ar de’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . A s not ed bythe d istric t co u rt, th is c laim is p ro c e d u ra llyd e fa u lted b e c a u se it w a s n o t ra ise d in s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs and i s now barr ed underC ol or ado l aw . See C ol o. R ev. S tat. § 1 6 -5 -4 0 2 . W e a re p re c lu d e d f ro m re v iew in g c laim s d e fa u lted o n a d e q u a te stat e p roc ed u ral gro u n d s u n less V elard e d em o n str ates “ ca u se a n d p rejud ice o r a f u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e .” S m ith v . M u lli n , 3 7 9 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 5 (1 0 th C i r. 20 04 ). B ecause V el arde do es not pr esentevidence suffi ci ent t o m eett hese s t andar ds , w e ar e for ecl os ed fr om cons i der i ng thi s cl ai m on the mer i t s . See C a n n o n v . G ib s o n , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 6 5 -6 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).- 6 -

V el arde’ s r equ estfor a C O A i s DENI ED and his peti t i on i s DI S M I S S ED . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatV el ar de pr es ent s a “r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum ent on the l a w a nd fa c t s i n s up po r tof t he i s s ue s r a i s e d o n a pp e a l , ” M c I nt os h v . U . S. P a r o l e Co mm ’ n , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 2 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) , we GRANT h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d o n a p p e a l in fo rm a p a u p e ri s . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge