FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 10, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 11 25 9 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 61 52 6 C V-JI C STEADROY W ILLIAMS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us WALTER A. MCNEIL, Secr et ary, Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Febru ar y 1 0, 2 00 9) Befo re DUBINA an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , andGOLDBERG, Ju dg e. *

Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg , United States Court of Interna tional Trade J udg e, sitti ng * by designation.DUBINA, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s a que st io n o f fi rs t i m pr es si onforou r ci rcu it : wh ethe r a di st ric t co urt h as di sc ret io n n otto co ns id er a p et it io ne r’s arg um en ts reg ard in g t he ti m el in es s o f hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on when th e p et it io ne r rai se s t he ti m el in es s arg um en ts forth e fi rs t t im e in hi s o bjec ti on s t o am ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d
reco m m en da ti on . For t he reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ha s s uc h d is cret io n a nd , un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s ca se , di d n otab us e it s di sc ret io n. Acc or di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l o f St ead ro y W il li am s’s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 habe as pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d.

I. STAT EMENT O F THE CASE InSep te m

be r 20 02 , a Flo rid a jury con vi ct edW il li am s o f arm edki dn ap in g
an d a rm edrob be ry , andth e st at e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edhi m to a pr is on term

of f orty y ears , ten of wh ic h wer e m an da to ry . W il li am s fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al on Sep te m be r 25 , 20 02 , andth e Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal affi rm edW il li am s’s jud gm en t an d s en te nc e o n Oct ob er 2 9, 2 00 3. On J un e 1 5, 2 00 4, Will ia m s fi le d apr o s e st at e p et it io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua ntto Flo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0, wh ic h the st at e tr ia l
co urt d en ie d o n S ep te m

be r 10 , 20 04 . On Nov em be r 17 , 20 05 , W il li am s fi le d a
m ot io n fo r be la te d app eal , whi ch th e ap pe ll at e co urt g ran te d o n F eb ru ary 9, 2 00 6.
2On M arch 1, 2 00 6, Will iam s ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on

rel ie f, an d o n Ap ril 4, 2 00 6, t he Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal affi rm edth e tr ia l
co urt’s o rd er d en y in g Wil li am s s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f. W il li am s fi le d afed eral habe as pe ti ti onon Octo be r 8, 2 00 6, i n wh ic h h e
wro te th atth e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt af firm edhi s b el at edap pe al on May 26, 2 00 6,
an d c on te nd edth athi s fe de ral pe ti ti on was t im el y be cau se hi s s ta te po st co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on was p en di ng fro m Ju ne 17 , 20 04 , to May 26, 2 00 6. Th e St at e
res po nd ed , arg ui ng th atW il li am s’s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on was t im e-b arre d u nd er th e o ne -y ear t im e li m iton fed eral habe as pe ti ti on s i n 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 . The St at e cl ai m edth atth e o ne -y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d ra n fo r 14 0 d ay s b efo re Will ia m s fi le d hi s s ta te pe ti ti on forpo st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f on Ju ne 15 , 20 04 , whi ch to ll edth e o ne y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d. Acco rd in g t o t he Sta te , th e cl oc k re st art edwhen th e st at e tri al co urt d en ie d Wil li am s’s m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f on Sep te m be r 10 , 20 04 , andranfor43 3 d ay s u nt il he fil edhi s m ot io n fo r be la te d app eal of the de ni al of h is po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on . The St at e p os it edth atth e cl oc k d idno t s to p whi le hi s m ot io n fo r a b el at edap pe al was p en di ng , so an othe r 84 day s p as se d be fo re the Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal is su edit s M arch 1, 2 00 6, m an da te al lo win g Wil li am s’s ap pe al . The cl oc k re st art edwhen W il li am s’s s ub se qu en t ap pe al was d en ie d andranforan ot he r 13 5 d ay s u nt il W il li am s fi le d h is fed eral
3habe as pe ti ti on . The St at e th us arg ue d t ha t 7 92 da y s o f un to ll edti m e p as se d

be fo re Will ia m s fi le d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on , and , th eref or e, th e p et it io n was ti m e-b arre d u nd er the st atut e. The di stric t co urt re ferr edth e m at te r to th e fed eral m ag is tra te jud ge for a rep ort an d re co m

m en da ti on . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 , et s eq . (20 06 ). The m ag is tra te jud ge in st ru ct edW il li am s t o fi le , by Aug us t 3 , 20 07 , a rep ly to t he Sta te ’s
res po ns e as se rti ng th atth e p et it io n was un ti m el y . W il li am s d idno t fi le a rep ly. 1 On No ve m

be r 9, 2 00 7, t he m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , reco m m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d is m is s Will ia m s’s h ab eas pe ti ti on as t im eba rred . W il li am s fi le d o bjec ti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d
reco m m en da ti on , ass ert in g t ha t h e h adfil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al fro m th e tr ia l
co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n i n Oct ob er 2 00 4, b utdi d n otdi sc ov er
un ti l Se pt em

be r 20 05 th atpri so n aut ho rit ie s n ev er m ai le d h is no ti ce o f ap pe al to th e Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal . Thu s, Will ia m s ar gu edth atun de r th e “pr is on
m ai lb ox rul e,” the li m it at io ns pe rio d was to ll edfro m th e d ay he si gn edth e p et it io n
un ti l t he da y

in Sep te m

be r 20 05 th athe di sc ov eredth atth e au th or it ie s h adno t

Wil liams’s counsel stated in the appellate brief and during oral argument to this court that 1 she misread the district court’s order and believed that the elec tronic file was a duplicate copy of the State’s re sponse to a Show Cause Or der. A s such, she did not file a r eply
. 4m ai le d i t. W il li am s al so co nt en de d t ha t t he li m it at io ns pe rio d was to ll edwhi le 2 hi s m ot io n fo r a b el at edap pe al was p en di ng in th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt, fro m Nov em be r 17 , 20 05 , to Feb ru ary 9, 2 00 6. Th eref or e, W il li am s cl ai m edth aton ly 34 6 d ay s h adpa ss ed , andhi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on was t im el y fil ed
. Init s o rd er, the di st ric t co urt s ta te d tha t i t co nduc te d a de no vo rev ie w of t he
cas e b utdi d n otco ns id er Will iam s’s ar gu m en ts reg ard in g t he ti m el in es s o f hi s pe ti ti on . The d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atW il li am s n ev er fi le d arep ly to t he Sta te ’s
res po ns e an d fo un d t ha t h e arg ue d, fo r th e fi rs t t im e in hi s o bjec ti on s t o t he
m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , th atth e li m it at io ns pe rio d was to ll edfora ni ne -m on th pe rio d due to th e p ris on au th or it ie s’ fai lu re t o m ai l h is
no ti ce o f ap pe al . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d tha t i t m ay de cl in e to co ns id er arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th e o bjec ti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge s’s rep ort an d re co m

m en da ti on , anddo in g s o was warran te d i n t hi s ca se ba se d o n W il li am s’s fa il ur e to res po ndto th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er d ire ct in g h im to fil e a rep ly on t he pre ci se is su e o f ti m el in es s. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he
m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti onan d d is m is se d Wil li am s’s p et it io n
as ti m e-b arre d.
Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a pro se prisoner’ s court filing is deeme d filed on the date 2 it is delivere d to prison authorities for mailing. See Fe d. R. App. P. 4(c) ; Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275–76, 108 S. Ct . 2379, 2384–85 (1988). 5The di stric t co urt g ran te d Wil li am s’s m ot io n fo r a certi fic at e o f

ap pe al ab il ity

(“ COA”). In h is reque stfora COA, W il li am s as se rts th atth e

3 di st ric t co urt was requi redto co ns id er h is ti m el in es s ar gu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t ti m e in hi s o bjec ti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , and th is co urt s ho ul d re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t d is m is si ng hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d andrem an d fo r rec on si de rat io n, t ak in g i nt o a cco un t W il li am s’s ar gu m en ts reg ard in g t im el in es s. 4 II . STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s treat m en t o f a m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on . St ep he ns v. To lb er t , 47 1 F .3d11 73 , 11 75 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Howev er, wh enrev ie win g adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us , we rev ie w it s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r an d i ts leg al
co nc lu si on s de no vo . Bree dl ov e v. Mo or e , 27 9 F .3d95 2, 9 58 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON

In its order g ranting a COA, the dist ri ct co u rt noted that “jurists of rea son could find it 3 debata ble whether the Court was require d to cons i d er Mr. Wil liams’ arguments reg arding timeliness.” (R. Vol. 1, Doc. 21 at 2.) On appea l, Wil liams also argues that we should consider the merits of his timeliness 4 argument. Our appellate revie w is limit ed to the issues specifie d in the COA. See Murray v. United States , 145 F.3d 1249, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 1998). Be cause Wil liams’s contentions as to the merits of his tim el i n es s ar gu m en t are outside the scope of the COA, and we did not expand the COA to include the merits iss ue, we will not consider it. 6In St ep he ns v. To lb er t , we hel d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt d oe s n otab us e it s

di sc ret io n b y

co ns id eri ng anarg um en t t ha t was no t p res en te d t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge . 47 1 F .3dat 1 17 4. We dec li ne d t o d eci de whet he r a d is tri ctco urt m us t
co ns id er an arg um en t t ha t i s n otpre se nt edto th e m ag is tra te jud ge an d l eftth at is su e to “be res ol ve d a no th er d ay in th e ev en t t ha t a d is tri ctco urt d ecl in es to
co ns id er a n ew arg um en t.” Id
. at 1 17 7. Th atda y ha s arriv ed . In t hi s ca se , th e di st ric t co urt d ecl in edto co ns id er the pe ti ti on er’s t im el in es s ar gu m en t t ha t h e d id
no t ra is e b efo re the m ag is tra te jud ge . Alth ou gh th is cas e in vo lv es th e o pp os it e
sc en ari o o f th e o ne we ad dr es se d i n St ep he ns , we res ol ve th is cas e in th e sa m e
m an ne r as we di d St ep he ns . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt h as bro ad di sc ret io n i n re vi ewin g am ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , and , th eref or e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o c on si de r W il li am s’s t im el in es s ar gu m en t t ha t was no t p res en te d t o the m ag is tra te jud ge . Und er the Fed eral Mag is tra te s Act , “ th e m ag is tra te [jud ge ] ha s n o aut ho rit y to m ak e a fi na l an d b in di ng ” ru li ng on a di sp os it iv e m ot io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rad da tz , 44 7 U.S. 6 67 , 67 3, 1 00 S. Ct. 2 40 6, 2 41 1 (1 98 0) . The Actpro vi de s, i n pa rt, t ha t: A jud ge of t he co urt s ha ll m ak e a d e n ov o d et erm in at io n o f th os e po rti on s o f th e rep ort o r sp eci fie d p ro po se d fi nd in gs or reco m m en da ti on s t o wh ic h o bjec ti onis m ad e. A judg e o f th e co urt
7m ay

acce pt , reject , or m od ify, in wh ol e o r in pa rt, t he fin di ng s o r reco m m en da ti on s m ad e b y

th e m ag is tra te jud ge . The jud ge m ay als o rece iv e fu rth er ev id en ce o r rec omm itth e m at te r to th e m ag is tra te jud ge with i ns tru ct io ns . 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (b )(1 ); se e a ls o Fed . R. Civ . P. 72 (b ) (i m pl em en ti ng an d re fle ct in g th e b read th of s ta tu to ry

di sc ret io n s etforth in th e Fed eral Mag is tra te s Act ). In di sc us si ng th e Act , th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atth e p ur po se of t he Act’s la ng ua ge “ was to ve st‘ ul ti m at e ad jud ic at ory

po wer o ve r di sp os it iv e m ot io ns ’ in th e d is tri ctco urt wh il e g ran ti ng th e ‘wide stdi sc ret io n’ on ho w to tre atth e
reco m m en da ti on s o f th e m ag is tra te .” Rad da tz , 44 7 U.S. at67 5, 1 00 S. Ct. at24 12 (quo ti ng S. Rep . No. 9 4- 62 5, at10 (19 76 )). “ Co ng res s i nt en de d t o p erm it wha te ve r rel ia nc e a d is tri ctjud ge , inth e ex erci se of s ou ndjud ic ia l d is cret io n, ch os e to pl ace o n am ag is tra te ’s pro po se d fi nd in gs an d re co m m en da ti on s.” Id
. at 67 6, 1 00 S. Ct. at24 13 . It i s cl ear, h owe ve r, th atth e Art ic le III jud ge m us t re ta in fin al de ci si on -m ak in g autho rit y . Se e Rad da tz , 44 7 U.S. at68 1– 82 , 10 0 S . Ct. at 24 15 . The d is tri ctco urt m us t re ta in “ to ta l co nt ro l an d ju ris di ct io n” of the en ti re pr oc es s i f itrefe rs di sp os it iv e m ot io ns to a m ag is tra te jud ge forreco m m en da ti on . Th oma s v. Arn , 47 4 U.S. 1 40 , 15 3, 1 06 S. Ct. 4 66 , 47 4 (1 98 5) (qu ot in g Rad da tz , 44 7 U.S. at68 1, 1 00 S. Ct. at24 15 ).

8Ci rcu itco urts di ffer on th e m ean in g o f de no vo rev ie w by th e d is tri ctco urt
as st at edin th e Ma gi st rat es Act an d F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 7 2( b) . For
ex am pl e, in Uni te d Sta tes v. Geo rg e , th e Fo urth Cir cu ithe ldth atas p artof i ts ob li ga ti on to de te rm in e de no vo an y is su e co ns id eredby the m ag is tra te jud ge to whi cha pr op er o bjec ti onis m ad e, a d is tri ctco urt m us t co ns id er al l ar gu m en ts , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th ey were ra is edbe fo re the m ag is tra te jud ge . 97 1 F .2d 11 13 , 11 18 (4t h C ir. 1 99 2) . The Fi rs t, Fi fth , Nin th , andTent h C irc ui ts , ho wev er, ha ve reject edth is id ea, fi nd in g t ha t re qu iri ng th e d is tri ctco urt t o c on si de r ne w arg um en ts rai se d i n t he ob jecti on s ef

fect iv el y wou ldeli m in at e eff

ic ie nc ie s g ai ne d th ro ug h t he Mag is tra te s Actan d wo ul d u nf ai rly ben efi t l it ig an ts who co ul d c ha ng e th ei r ta ct ic s af

te r is su an ce o f th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on . In Pat er so n-Lei tc h C

o. v. Ma ss ac hu se tt

s Mu ni ci pa l Who lesa le Elec tr ic Co
. , th e Fi rs t Ci rcu ithe ld“ cat eg or ic al ly tha t an un su cces sf ul pa rty is n oten ti tl edas o f rig htto de no vo rev ie w by th e jud ge of a n a rg um en t n ev er s eas on ab ly rais ed be fo re the m ag is tra te .” 84 0 F .2d98 5, 9 90 –9 1 (1 stCir . 19 88 ). Becaus e th e
m ag is tra te jud ge syste m

was c reat edto he lp all ev ia te th e workl oa d o f th e d is tri ct jud ge s, “ itwou ldbe fun da m en ta ll y un fai r to pe rm ita li ti ga ntto setit s ca se in
m ot io n b efo re the m ag is tra te , waitto see whi chway th e win d was bl owi ng , an d—ha vi ng rece iv edanun fav or ab le reco m m en da ti on—s hi ft g ears be fo re the
9di st ric t ju dg e.” Id
. at 9 91 . Sim il arl y , th e Ten th Cir cu itst at edth at“ [i]ss ue s ra is ed

fo r th e fi rs t t im e in ob

jecti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on are de em edwaiv ed .” Mar

sh al l v. Ch at er , 75 F.3d14 21 , 14 26 (10 thCir . 19 96 );
ac co rd Cu pi t v. Whit le

y , 28 F.3d53 2, 5 35 & n .5 (5 th Cir . 19 94 ) (d eci di ng th at le ga l ar gu m en ts , su ch as c ha ll en ge s b as edon ex haus ti on or p ro cedur al de fau lt , rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in ob jecti on s t o am ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on
m ay be waiv ed ). The Nin th Cir cu itno te d t ha t “ al lo win g p art ie s t o l it ig at e fu ll y th ei r cas e be fo re the m ag is tra te an d, i f un su cces sf ul , to ch an ge th ei r strat eg y an d p res en t a di ffer en t the ory

to th e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d frus tra te th e p ur po se of t he Mag is tra te s Act.” Gre en ho w v. S

ec’y of Heal th &Huma n Servs . , 86 3 F .2d63 3, 6 38 (9th C ir. 19 88 ), ov erru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rdes ty , 97 7 F .2d13 47 , 13 48 (9t h C ir. 1 99 2) (enba nc ). In a cco rdwith t hi s p rece de nt , in Uni te d Sta tes v. How el l , th e Nin thCir cu itrel ie d h eav il y on th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n, an d, l ik e th e Fi rs t, Fi fth , andTent h C irc ui ts , st at edth ata di st ric t co urt “ is no t re qu ire d t o[ ]
co ns id er ev id en ce p res en te d fo r th e fi rs t t im e ina pa rty’ s o bjec ti on to th e
m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on .” 23 1 F .3d61 5, 6 21 (9t h C ir. 2 00 0) . In ad di ti on to fin di ng th atbo th th e Ma gi st rat es Act an d S up rem e Co urt p rece de nt pr ov id e d is cret io n t o t he di stric t co urt i n t hi s i ns ta nc e, th e co urt n ot edth at“ [t]o
10requi re a d is tri ctco urt t o c on si de r ev id en ce n otpre vi ou sl y pre se nt edto th e
m ag is tra te jud ge wou ldeffe ct iv el y nu ll ify the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s con si de rat io n o f th e m at te r an d wo ul d n othe lp to rel ie ve th e workl oa d o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Id
. at 62 2. “ Sy st em ic effi ci en ci es wou ldbe fru st rat edan d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rol e reduc edto th atof am ere d res s re he ars er i f a p art y were al lo wedto fei ntan d wea ve atth e in it ia l h eari ng , andsav e it s kno ck ou t p un ch forth e se co ndrou nd .” Id
. (quo ti ng Pat er

so n-Lei tc h C

o. , 84 0 F .2dat 9 91 ). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t i t h addi sc ret io n t o
co ns id er Will ia m s’s t im el in es s ar gu m en t b utde cl in edto do so be cau se W il li am s fai le d t o re sp on d t o t he m ag is tra te ’s ord er d ire ct in g h im to fil e a rep ly on t he pr eci se is su e o f ti m el in es s. Th e d is tri ctco urt re ta in edth e fi na l ad jud ic at iv e
au th or it y an d p ro pe rly exer ci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n d eci di ng whet he r to co ns id er an y ne w arg um en ts rai se d b y W il li am s i n h is ob

jecti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m

m en da ti on . Se e Rad

da tz , 44 7 U.S. at68 1– 82 , 10 0 S . Ct. at24 15 (em ph as iz in g t ha t i n o rd er t o p res erv e Art ic le III au th or it y , th e fed eral di st ric t jud ge m us t re ta in fin al de ci si on -m ak in g autho rit y ). Thu s, we an swe r th e que st io n le ft o pe n i n St ep he ns an d h ol d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt h as di sc ret io n t o d ecl in e to
co ns id er a p art y ’s arg um en t wh enth atarg um en t was no t fi rs t p res en te d t o t he
m ag is tra te jud ge . The d is tri ctco urt i n t hi s ca se ha d t he di sc ret io n wh ethe r to
11co ns id er Will ia m s’s ar gu m en t re ga rd in g t im el in es s o f hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on when he

di d n otrai se th e arg um en t i n t he fir stin st an ce t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge . Acco rd in gl y , bec au se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d is m is si ng W il li am s’s h ab eas pe ti ti onas t im e-b arre d, we af firm th e jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l. AFFIR MED.

12