1

07- 4966- cr U nite d S tates v. O w en UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T erm 2 008 (A rgue d: Dec emb er

10, 200 8 Dec id ed: J anu ary 9, 200 9)

Do cket No . 07 -4 966 -c r U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee , -v .- L ANC E E DG AR O WEN ,

De fendant -A ppella nt , P AUL S AMU ELS , also known a s Pablo, and M ARK B A R OODY ,

Defenda nts . B ef or e: F EI NBERG , C AB R ANES , and H ALL , Circuit Jud ges. Def end ant Lance Edgar

Owe n ap peal s fr oma ju dgm ent of con vic ti on , en te r ed o n N ov emb er 29, 2005 by

the United States District Court f or the Southern Dis trict of New York (Robert P. Pa tt er s on , Judge

), on two counts of dis tribution and poss ession of marijuana and conspiracy to di s tr ib ut e ma r iju ana, invio lat

io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 81 2, 8 41(a)( 1) , 84 1( b) (1 )( B ). Ondi r ect

app eal, defendant presents claims of ineffective assist ance of counsel, pros ecutorial misconduct, a nd insuff icient e vidence . Because the issues r aised on defenda nt’s Rule 33 motion remain be fore the Di s tr ict Cou r t, we m us t h ol d thi s app eal i n ab eyan ce p ending the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s r es olut

io n o f that motion. M I CHAEL W. M A R T I N (J ame s A. Co hen , on the brief ) L in coln Squar e L egal

Ser vic es , I nc. , N ew Yo r k, N Y, for De fendant -A ppella nt .S p e c ific a lly , S a m u e ls st a te d , “I k n o w M r . O w e n fo r a lo n g tim e . Y o u r H o n o r , I h ire d h im fo r a jo b , a n d th a t’s 1 a bo ut i t . H e di dn’ t k no w an yt hi ng a bo ut dr ug s . M r . O wen h a s b ee n a g oo d f r i en d a nd g oo d b r ot he r t o m e, You r H onor . M ayb e I was wrong nott o t ake t he s t and— m ayb e he was wrong not t o t ake t he s t and, but he di dn’ t ha ve any t hi ng t o do wi t h i t , Your H onor . I t ol d t he p r os ecut or t hat when I went i n. I t ol d hi m M r . O w en was i nnoc ent when I f i r s t went i n, when I di d m y pr off er ag r eem ent . I t ol d hi m M r . O w en di dn’ t ha ve a nyt hi ng t o do wi t h i t . ” (T r . of S e n te n c in g H e a r in g , N o v . 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , 8 7 :2 -1 1 .) 2 A ND R E W J. F I SH , Assis tant United States Attorney (MichaelJ. Gar cia, Unit ed S tat es At to rney fo r th e So uthern D is tr

ict of New York, and William J. Harrington, Assis tant Unit ed S tat es At to rney , on the brief ), Of fi ce o f the U ni te d St ate s At to rney

fo r th e So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k, New Yor k, N Y, for Appellee
. J OS É A. C AB R ANES , Circuit Jud ge : We co ns id er

pr oce du r al ques ti on s ar

is ing f r omth e r elat

ive ly co mm onph eno men onof new app ell ate cou ns el r epl acing tr ial cou ns el while cer tain m ot io ns r emainpen di ng i n the tr ial cou r t. I n thi s
cas e, d ef end ant La nce Edgar

Owe n ap peal s fr oma ju dgm ent of con vic ti on , en te r ed o n N ov emb er 29, 2005 by the U nited States Distr ict Court for the Southern Dis trict of New York (Robert P. Patters on, Judge ), on two counts of dis tribution and poss ession of marijuana and conspiracy to distr ibute
mar iju ana, invio lat

io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 81 2, 8 41(a)( 1) , 84 1( b) (1 )( B ), and846 , an d s ent enc ing O wen pr in cip ally t o 6 0 m on th s ’ in car cer ati on . H owe ver , o n F ebruar y 3, 200 6, the D is tr

ict Cou r t gr ant ed Owe n a n ew tr

ial pu r s uan t t o Rule 3 3 o f the F ede r al Rules of Cr imin al P r oce du r e onth e bas is of new ly discovered evide nce, a nd Owen wa s r elea sed on bond soon thereafter. Owen remai ns r elea sed on bond today. One w eek a fter or dering a ne w trial, the District Court appointed new c ounsel purs uant to th e Cr imin al J us ti ce Act
. See 18 U.S.C . § 3006A (c) (“The United States magistrate judge or the court may, in the interests of just ice, substitute one appointed counsel for another at any stage of the pr oce edi ngs .”)
. The government appea led the Rule 33 order granting a ne w trial. Another pane l of our Court reversed because the e vidence in question—an alle gedly exculpa tory st atement made at sentencing by
co- def end ant Pa ul Sam uel s —was no t, by d ef init io n, “newly dis cov er ed. ” United Sta tes v. Owen , 50 0 1W e d id n o t, in o u r d e c r e ta l sta te m e n t, “r e m a n d ” th is c a se fo r a p a r tic u la r , p r e sc r ib e d p u r p o se . S ee U nite d 2 S tates v. O w en , 50 0 F
. 3d 83 , 92 ( 2d C i r. 20 07 )
. I n a foo t no t e, ho w ev er, w e a d d ressed t he resolu t i on of O w en ’ s Br ad y c la im o n re m a n d
. Se eid. a t 9 1 n .4 (“ W e d o n o t, h o w e v e r , p r e c lu d e th e p a r tie s f r o m p u r su in g th e m a tte r , w h ic h , a s n o te d , i s f a ct ua l l y di s pu t ed, o n r em a nd t o t he di s t r i ctc ou r t . ” )
. Th e l og i c of r es olvi ng O wen ’ s di s pu t ed Br ad y c la im a p p lie s to h is di s pu t ed S tr

ickland cl ai m wi t h equal f

or ce. O w en’ s cl ai m of

pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct i s not m ent i oned i n hi s ha ndw r i t t en Rul e 33 m ot i on, but was 3 added by hi s new at t or neys . I n es s ence , “ O w en a s s er t s t hat t he G over nm ent ’ s al l eg ed f ai l ure t o i nf

or m O w en t hat Sam uel s ex cul pat ed hi m . . . m i gh t al s o ha ve v i ol at ed hi s r i gh t s under B rady v. M aryl and , 373 U
. S. 83 ( 196 3)
. ” O w en , 500 F .3 d a t 9 1 n .4
. 3 F. 3d83, 89- 90 (

2dCir . 20 07)
. Our opinion noted in a footnote, howeve r, that the absence of a motion
to s ever Owe n’ s tr

ial fr omSam uel s ’ tr

ial “m ani fe s t[ s ] a l ack o f diligen ce [ontr ial cou ns el’ s par t] in pr ocu r ing the ad mi s s io n o f S amu els ’ t es ti mo ny. ” Id
. at 91 n.5. A full description of the underlying fa ct s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e is con tai nedinou r earlie r op inio n. Se e i

d. at 8 4- 87. 2 Altho ughth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t b as ed i ts Rul e 33 dec is io n s ol ely o n n ewly di s cov er ed evid enc e, Owen’s handwritten Rule 33 motion for a new trial—submitted pro se bef or e the as s ign men t o f n ew counsel—also relied on a lternate grounds, including ine ffective assist ance of counsel. After our Court filed its opinion but before the iss uance of the mandate, the District Court held a prelimina ry hearing
onSep te mb er

20, 200 7 r egar di ng the o th er gr ou nd s fo r

r eli ef pr es s ed i n O wen ’s Rul e 33
mo ti on—n ame ly, in ef

fe ct ive as s is tan ce o f c ou ns el— andonhi s new clai m o f p r os ecu to r

ial misconduct. The Court ordered additional briefing on those clai ms. According to a revised briefing

3

s che dule, whi ch the D is tr

ict Cou r t d ock et ed o n O ct ob er 10, 200 7, O wenwas r equ ir ed t o s ub mi t a b r

ief by O ct ob er

25, andth e go vernm ent

was r equ ir ed t o r es po ndby N ov emb er 8. On October 31, 2007, a fter Owen submitt ed his brief and before the government responded, th e ma nd ate fr omth e Cou r t o f App eals was ent er ed i n the D is tr ict Cou r t. I n anef

fo r t t o p r es er

ve his right to appeal the Nove mber 29, 2005 judgme nt of conviction, Owen file d a “protective ” notice of app eal o n N ov emb er

5, 2 007 , whichin te r rup te d the D is tr ict Cour t’ s br

ief ing s che dule. See Fe d. R. App . P . 4( b) (1 )( A) (i ) ( r equ ir ing a cr imin al d ef end ant to file a n ot

ice o f app eal i n the dis tr

ict cou r t w ithi nI n a n a t t or ney af f i r m at i on t o t hi s C our t dat ed N ovem ber 5, 2007 an d i n a l et t er t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t dat ed 4 N ovem ber 16, 2007 , O w en’ s ap pel l at e co uns el s t at ed hi s bel i ef t hat O w en was r equi r ed t o f i l e t hi s ap pea l af

t er t he m a n d a te w a s d o c k e te d in o r d e r to p r e se r v e h is r ig h t to a p p e a l. I n l i gh t of our hol di ng t hat O w en’ s R ul e 33 m ot i on was p e n d in g b e fo r e th e D istr ic t C o u r t a t th a t tim e , th e r e w a s, te c h n ic a lly , n o n e e d to file a n o tic e o f a p p e a l a t th a t tim e . S ee F ed
. R
. A pp . P
. 4(b)( 3)( B ) ( “A no t i ce of ap pe al fi l ed after t he co u rt an no u nc es a d ec i si on , sen t en ce , or o rd er— bu t be fore i t di s pos es of

an y of t he m ot i ons r ef

er r ed t o i n Ru l e 4( b) ( 3) (A ) [i ncl udi ng a R ul e 33 m ot i on]

— beco m es ef f ect i ve upo n t he l at er of

t he f ol l owi ng : (i) t he e nt r y of t he o r der di s pos i ng of

t he l as t s uch r em ai ni ng m ot i on; or (i i) t he e nt r y of t he j ud gm ent of conv i ct i on. ”)
. W e d o not do ub t , how ever, t he good f ai t h of O w en’ s appel l at e cou nsel i n fi l i ng a
“ p r o te c tiv e ” n o tic e o f a p p e a l. 4 10 d ays of th e en tr y of ju dgm ent ). Owe n’ s app ell ate cou ns el al s o s ub mi tt ed a d ecla r ati on , d ate d 4 November 5, 2007, i n suppor t of a motion to r emand the ma tter to the District Court s o that the proceedings could resume and the District Court could hold a previously-schedule d hearing set for No vem ber

19. Owen did not request that this Court hold his appea l in abe yanc e pending the
r es olut io n o f the p r oce edi ngs inth e Di s tr ict Cou r t. T he g ov ernm ent

s ub mi tt ed anaf

fi r mat io n i n opposition to this motion on November 20, 2007, arguing tha t Owen’s collate ral attack s on the judgment could a nd should be resolved on direct appea l without additiona l fact-finding, or, in the alt ernat ive , s ho ul d b e br ought

ina hab eas corpu s pr oce edi ng p ur s uan t t o 2 8 U. S.C. § 22 55. Nei th er th e s ub mi s s io ns fr omOwe n n or th e s ub mi s s io n f

r omth e go vernm ent

in di cat ed that

th e in te r rup te d proceedings in the District Court aros e from Owen’s Rule 33 motion. A motions panel of our Court deniedOwe n’ s mo ti onto r ema ndinan o r der do cket ed o n F ebruar

y 5, 200 8, a ndth e par ti es pr oce ede d
to s ub mi t b r

ief s onth e me r

it s of th e app eal. Up onou r r evi ew o f the b r

ief s andth e r eco r d o n ap peal , we c on clu de that Owe n’ s No vem ber 5, 2007 notice of appealhas not yet become effective. W hen the manda te of this Court iss ued on October 31, 2007, the District Court’s jur isdiction over the remaining c laims in Owen’s Rule 33 motion
was of fi cially r es to r ed. See United States v. Rivera , 844 F.2d 916, 92 1 (2d Cir. 1988) (“Simply put, ju r is di ct io n f ollo ws th e ma nd ate .”) ; Ostrer v . United Sta tes

, 58 4 F .2d594 , 59 8 (

2dCir . 19 78) (“ T he e ff

ect of th e ma nd ate is to br

ing the p r oce edi ngs ina cas e onapp eal i n o ur Cou r t t o a cl os e andto r emo ve i t fr omth e ju r

is di ct io n o f thi s Cou r t, r eturni ng i t t o the f orumwhe nce it

cam e.”). WhenOwe n f

ile d his “protective” notic e of appea l on November 5, 2007, the remaining c laims in Owen’s Rule 33 motionThe s am e r ul e a ppl i es t o a m ot i on f or ( 1) a j udgm ent of

ac qui t t al under R ul e 29 an d ( 2) ar r es t of j udgm ent 5
u n d e r R u le 3 4
. S ee

F e d
. R
. A p p . P
. R
. 4 (b )(3)(A ). 5 r emain ed p ending in

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t. Pu r s uan t t o Rule 4 (b)(3) (B) o f the F ede r al Rules of App ell ate Pr oce du r e, [a] notice of appe al filed a fter the [dis trict] court announces a decision, sentence , or order—but before it dispos es of [a motion for a newtrial under Rule 3 3]—becomes effective upon the later of the following: (i) the entry of the order dispos ing of the last such remaining motion; or (ii) the entry of the judgment of conviction. Where, a s here, the Distr

ict Court’s order that granted a Rule 33 motion on one of the grounds presented has been vac ated solely on tha t ground—and the other grounds have not be en addressed—a notice of appe al is not “effective.” Our pr ior decision cannot be c onstrued as having “disposed” of Ow en ’s Rul e 3 3 m oti on be ca use , w hi le we re ve rse d th e D ist ric t C ou rt’ s gra nt o f th a t mo ti on , w e d id so
only i ns of ar as it was bas ed o n n ewly

di s cov er ed evid enc e. L

ike th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t, we didno t r each th e other gr ou nd s fo r

r eli ef pr es s ed b y Ow en. I nd eed , we c lar if iedinou r op inio n that

“we d o n ot

. . . pr eclu de the p ar ti es fr ompu r s ui ng [ a Br ady clai m]
. . . onr ema ndto th e di s tr ict cou r t. ” United Sta tes v. Owen , 500 F.3d 83, 91 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2007). Our opinion did not, howe ver, provide any guidanc e to the Di s tr ict Cou r t as to ho w it

s ho ul d p r oce ed o n r ema nd . Af te r ou r dec is io n, cou ns el f

or Owe n r eturned
to th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t an d r equ es te d a b r

ief ing s che dule “ to fl es h o ut

th e r emaining is s ues inM r . O wen ’s motion.” The Distr

ict Court granted that request and established a briefing schedul e as set for th abo ve. We co nclud e f

r omthis s equ enc e of

even ts th at the i s s ues r ais ed b y Ow en i n his Rul e 33
mo ti on , as well

as th e Br ady clai m, are still before the Distr ict Court—interrupted only by our denial of Owe n’ s mo ti onto r ema ndands ub s equ ent con s id er ati onof

this app eal. In the normal cours e, a “ protective” notice of appealshould be held in abe yanc e pending the resolution of

a Rule 33 motion by the District Court. See, e.g. , In re T er ro ri st Bombing s o f U. S. Embas

si es in 5 E. Afr. , _ _ F .3d
__ , N o. 01- 153 5- cr (L ), 200 8 U. S. App . LEXI S 24 057 , at *6 n .3 ( 2dCir . N ov . 24 , 200 8) (“ [T ]h e de fe nd ant s mo ved , inth e Di s tr ict Cou r t, fo r

a new tr ial bas ed o n n ewly

di s clo s ed6

evi den ce. The D is tr

ict Cou r t c on du ct ed evid ent

iar y he ar ings onthis mo ti on , an d we hel d the ap peal s inabeyance pen di ng the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s r es olut

io n o f the m ot

io n. ” ( in te rnal cit ati onomit te d) ); United States v. Jackso n , 950 F.2d 633, 63 5 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[W]he n a defenda nt files a motion that tolls the ti me f or app eal, th e mo ti onho ld s th e no ti ce o f app eal i n ab eyan ce an d the n ot ice b eco mes ef

fe ct ive upon the disposit

ion of the motion.”) (construing ea rlier version of Rule 4 (footnote omitt ed)). The appea l will then “ become[ ] e ffective upon . . . the e ntry of the or der dispos ing of the last . . . remaining motion,” Fed R. A pp. P. 4(b)(3)( B)( i), including a motion “for a new trial under Rule 33,” Fed R . App. P. 4(b)(3)( A)(ii). We see no basis to deviate from that pr actic e here. A s the interrupted proceeding s in the Distr ict Court make c lear, the c laims press ed in Owe n’s Rule 33 motion we re not fully resolved by the Di s tr ict Cou r t— or

by o ur Cou r t i n the d ecis io n v acat ing the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s gr ant

of a new tr ial —at the time we he ard this appeal. W e therefore hold this appeal in a beya nce so that the Distr ict Court may con du ct what ever pr oce edi ngs ar e ne ces s ary t o r es ol ve O wen ’s Rul e 33 mo ti on . Up onth e Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s r es olut

io n o f that

mo ti on , O wen ’s no ti ce o f app eal w ill bec om e ef

fe ct ive andth e pr oce edi ngs in this Court may commence promptly upon the filing of a letter to the Clerk of our Court notifying th e Cler k o f the c on clu s io n o f the p os t- ju dgm ent pr oce edi ngs inth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t. Any

s uchapp eal
s hall thenbe as s ign ed t o a p anel of ou r Cou r t i n the n ormal

cou r s e. Fi nally, no thing inthis op inio n s ho ul d b e r ead t o cr it ici ze the p r act

ice o f f ili ng a“pr ot ect

ive ”
no ti ce o f app eal, th e dilig ent wor k o f the D is tr

ict Cou r t, or Owe n’ s new

cou ns el. T o the c on tr ary, a “protective” notic e of appea l is a useful litigation tool where, a s here, the timeliness of a s ubsequent app eal c ouldbe c all ed i nt o ques ti on . I n ad di ti on , we c om men d the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s ef

fo r ts to mo ve ahea d p os th as te —ef

fi cien tly s che duling a b r

ief ing s che dule t o r es ol

ve the r emaining Rul e 33 clai ms . We a lso commend the work of Lincoln Square Lega l Service s, Inc., who filed the “protective” notice of appea l, and e xpress our thanks to them for their r epresentation pursuant to t he Crimina l Just

ice A ct.