T hi s di s pos i t i on i s not a ppr opr i a t e f or publ i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nte xc e pt * a s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. T he H onor a bl e D a vi d G
. C a m pbe l l , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i st ri ct J udge f orthe ** D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona , s i t t i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A,

P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee , v. FL ORENCE M ARTHA BEARDSL EE ,

D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. N o. 06- 15236 D. C. No . CV- 0 1
- 3 9 7
- DLJ
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia D . L ow e l l J e ns e n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d F e brua r y 8, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia Be f o r e : HA LL a n d M c KEOW N, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d CAM PB EL L, D i stri ct ** Judg e. A f te ra 1 9 9 6 ju r y tr ia l, A p p e lla n t F lo r e n c e M a r th a B e a r d s le e w a s f o u n d g u ilty of a r s on unde r18 U
. S
. C
. § 844( i ) , c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i t a r s on unde r 18 U
. S
. C
. § 371,
m a i l f r au d u n d er 1 8 U . S
. C
. § 1341, a nd us e of a f i r e t o c om m i ta f

e l ony unde r18 

# FI LED MA R 11 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

U . S
. C
. § 84 4(h). T hi s C ou rtul t i m at el y a ff i rm ed t he conv i ct i on and rem anded for res e n te n c in g . U

ni t ed St at es v. B eardsl ee , 19 7 F . 3d 37 8 (9t h C i r. 19 99 ). A f t e rr e - s e nt e nc i ng, B e a r ds l e e f i l e d a pe t i t i on fo r a w ri t of ha be a s c orpus pu rs uantt o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 25 5. T he di stri ctcourtre ce i ved ext ensi ve bri ef i ng , hel d an
ev id en ti ar y h ea rin g , an d d en ied th e p etit io n . W e h av e ju risd icti o n o v er B ea rd slee ’s ap p ea l p u rs u an t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 (a ). W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s de c i s i on de no vo , L eavi t t v. A rave , 3 8 3 F. 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d a f f i r m. I. B ea rdsl ee m akes si x ar gu m ent s: (1) i nsuffi ci ent evi dence w as i nt rodu ce d attri al t o s how tha t he r w a r e hous e w a s us e d i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; ( 2) the j ur y i ns truc t i on
on the § 8 44 (i ) c ou ntw as er roneou s a nd prej ud i ci al ; (3 ) h er tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve; (4) t he di stri ctcourter re d i n fai l i ng t o rul e on al l i ss ues s ub m i t t ed i n h er § 2255 pe t i t i on; ( 5) the pr os e c ut or s e nga ge d i n m i s c onduc t a t tr i a l ; a nd ( 6) i ns uf f i c i e nt
e vi de nc e w a s i ntr oduc e d t o s uppor the rm a i l f r a ud c onvi c t i on. W e di spose of fi ve of these ar gu m ent s sum m ar i l y. A rgum ent s (1) and (2) are unpe r s ua s i ve f

orr e a s ons s t a t e d i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rof J a nua r y 23, 2006. A r g u m e n t ( 4 ) s u g g e s ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to a d d r e s s is s u e s r a i s e d in B e a r d s le e ’s § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n , b u t f a ils to id e n tif

y th e is s u e s w i t h a n y c la r ity o rto expl ai n h ow and w hen t hey w er e r ai se d i n t he di stri ctcourt . A rgum ent(5) i ncl ud esT he s e a r e the “ ba d m othe ra r gum e nt , ” the D M V doc um e nta r gum e nt , a nd the 1 im p r o p e rv o u c h in g a r g u m e n t. T he ar gu m entthatcoun sel fai l ed t o cou nt erthe go vernm ent ’ s a l l eged 2 m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on tha tB e a r ds l e e a nd he rda ught e rl i e d i n the f i r s ttr i a l w a s notm a de bel ow and m ay no tbe ra i se d o n app ea l
. B ea rdsl ee cl ai m s thatanot her a rgum ent– t hat coun se l fa i l ed t o i nt rodu ce copi es of her i nsurance po l i cy show i ng that she h ad del et ed c ont e nt s c ove r a ge pr i or t o the f i r e – w a s not a ddr e s s e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . P e r ha ps th is is b ec au se th e a rg u m en t w as m en ti o n ed o n ly in o n e s en ten ce o f B ea rd slee ’s pe t i t i on. I n a ny e ve nt , the a r gum e n t i s unpe r s ua s i ve . B e a r ds l e e m a ke s no s how i ng thattrial c ou nsel kn ew of the addi t i on al copi es of the i nsurance pol i cy , no r that om i ss i on of the copi es w as prej ud i ci al gi ven the prosec ut i on ’ s pri m ar y a rgum entthat B e a r d s le e ’s m o tiv e f

o rth e a r s o n w a s r e v e n g e , n o t m o n e y .

3 four i ss ues, three of w hi ch w er e n otra i se d i n t he di stri ctcourtand m ay no tbe ra i se d
o n a p p e a l. M

aj oy v . R oe , 296 F
. 3d 770, 777 n. 3 ( 9th C i r . 2002)
. A f t e rr e vi e w of

the 1 f our th i s s ue – tha tthe pr os e c ut i on i ntr oduc e d f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o the j ur y – w e f i nd no pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc tf orr e a s ons s t a t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . F i na l l y , a r gum ent ( 6 ) w a s n o t m a d e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d m a y n o t b e a s s e r te d o n a p p e a l. Id
. II. A r g u m e n t ( 3 ) a s s e r ts th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf o u r te e n s e p a r a te
re as on s. E l even of t hese re as on s a re un pers uasi ve for r ea sons st at ed b y the di stri ct
c our t , a nd tw o w e r e not c l e a r l y r a i s e d be l ow . B e a r ds l e e ’ s r e m a i ni ng c l a i m , a nd the 2 p ri m ary foc us of

he rbr i e f

s a nd or a l a r gum e nt , i s tha ttr i a l c ouns e l s houl d ha ve
re t ai ned an ars on expertt o i nv es t i gat e the ca use of the fi re .4

T o p rev ai l o n a cl ai m o f i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel , B eard sl ee m u stfi rst
s how tha tc ouns e l ’ s a c t i ons w e r e , i n l i ghtof a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s , “ out s i de the w i de
r a ng e of pr of e s s i on a l l y c ompe t e nta s s i s t a nc e . ” Str i c kland v
. W as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U . S. 668, 690 ( 1984)
. B e a r ds l e e m us tthe n s how “ a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty that , b utf or
coun se l ’s u n p rofe ss i on al er rors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” Id
. a t694. B e c a us e B e a r ds l e e ha s notm a de the f i r s ts how i ng, w e ne e d not
a ddr e s s the s e c ond. T ri al coun se l t es t i fi ed i n t he di stri ctcourtthathe re vi ew ed t he di sc ov er y p ro v id e d b y th e g o v ern m en tan d saw th atsev eral i n v est i g at o rs h ad fo u n d th e cau se
o f th e f ir e to b e a r s o n . T h e s e in c lu d e d A T F in v e s tig a to rJ a r e d T a y lo r , A T F f o r e n s ic ch em i stB rad C o o p er, an d i n su ran ce i n v est i g at o r E arl G u i sn ess. T ayl o r an d G u i sn ess vi s i t e d the s c e ne s hor t l y a f t e rthe f i r e oc c ur r e d, obs e r ve d i r r e gul a r bur n pa t t e r ns , a nd de t e c t e d a n odorof ga s ol i ne . A “ s ni f f e r ” us e d a tthe s c e ne c onf i r m e d the pr e s e nc e of pe tr ol e um pr oduc t s , a nd l a b t e s t s p erfo r m e d by C oope rc onf i r m e d the pr e s e nc e of ga s ol i ne i n c a rpe ts a m pl e s f r om the a r e a of

the f i r e ’ s or i gi n. T ri al coun se l t es t i fi ed t hathe al so kn ew that B ea rdsl ee ’ s c o-defendant s, B ar ry V e n a b le a n d P a u l G lo v e r , h a d c o n f e s s e d to s ta r tin g th e f

ir e b y p o u r in g g a s o lin e in to the bu i l di ng . B ot h m en had p l ea ded g ui l ty t o ars on and w er e pre pare d t o t es t i fy at tr i a l
. V e na bl e a l s o ha d r e c e i ve d a tr a f f i c t i c ke ton the ni ghtof the f i r e at a l oc a t i on5

n e a rth e w a r e h o u s e a n d a c o n s id e r a b le d is ta n c e f r o m h is o w n h o m e , c o r r o b o r a tin g h is pr e s e nc e ne a rthe f

i r e w he n i ts t a r t e d. C ou nsel a l s o k ne w tha tBe a r ds l e e ha d a l w a y s ma i nt a i ne d the f i r e w a s c a us ed by ar son. W hen she fi rs tvi si t ed t he sc ene a nd w as i nform ed t hat the ca use of the fi re
m i gh tbe el ec tri ca l , B ea rdsl ee prot es t ed thatthe fi re w as ar son. S he po i nt ed i nv es t i gat ors t o t he pi pe on the si de of the bu i l di ng w here V enabl e l at ersa i d h e pou re d i n t he gasol i ne. S he ca ll ed th e A T F t o reportthe ar son and t o n ot e thatshe w as i nv ol ved i n a l aw sui t thatconcerned the w ar ehou se and i t s busi ness . B ea rdsl ee l at er
m ade i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent s i n r ec orded c on vers at i on s w i th V enabl e thatre veal ed he rknow l e dge of

the a r s on. I n l i ghtof

the s e f a c t s , tr i a l c ouns el ha d a c ha l l e ngi ng t a s k i n de f e ndi ng B e a r ds l e e . R a the rtha n s houl de r i ng the bur de n of di s pr ovi ng the i nve s t i ga t or ’ s a r s on op i ni on s and att ac ki ng the ar son confes si on s and gu i l ty pl ea s of V enabl e a nd G l ov er , c ouns e l c hos e t o c onc e de tha tthe f i r e w a s de l i be r a t e l y s e t by V e na bl e a nd G l ove ra nd t o ass er tthat B ea rdsl ee kn ew no thi ng abou ti tand w as l at erbl ac km ai l ed by V enabl e. T h e strat eg y w o rk ed atth e fi rsttri al , p ro d u ci n g a h u n g j u ry. W e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e th a t c o u n s e l’s s tr a te g ic d e c is io n w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly defi ci entun der Str i c kland. J u d ic ia l s c ru tin y o f t r i a l s tr a te g y is “h ig h ly d e f e r e n tia l”
a nd “ m us t i ndul ge a s tr ong pr e s um pt i on tha t c ouns e l ’ s c onduc t f a l l s w i thi n the w i de6

ra ng e of r ea sonabl e profes si on al as si st ance . ” Str i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 . W h ile
c o u n s e l c a n n o t b e s a id to h a v e m a d e a s tr a te g y d e c is io n b e f o r e h e “o b ta in [ s ] th e f

a c ts
on w hi ch such a deci si on coul d b e m ade, ” Fri erso n v. W o o d f o rd , 463 F
. 3d 982, 992 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) (c i t at i on and quo t at i on m ar ks om i t t ed), thati s notw hathapp ened here. C ouns e l ba s e d hi s de c i s i on nott o r e t a i n a n a rson i nve s t i ga t oron s ubs t a nt i a l a nd p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e th a t th e f i r e wa s c a u s e d b y a r s o n , i n c l u d i n g th e c o n c l u s i o n s o f two i nve s t i ga t or s w ho i ns pe c t e d the s i t e s hor t l y a f t e rthe f i r e , A T F l a b t e s t s c onf

i r m i ng the p resen ce o f g aso l i n e, th e co n fessi o n s an d an t i ci p at ed t est i m o n y o f tw o co -d efen d an t s,
an d B e a r ds l e e ’ s ow n i ns i s t e nc e tha tthe f i r e w a s a r s on. W ha ti s m or e , the s tr a t e gy p r o v e d e f

f e c tiv e in p r e v e n tin g a c o n v ic tio n a t th e f ir s t tr ia l. B e a r d s le e h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h e rc o u n s e l’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly defi ci entun der Str i c kland
. Sh e th e r e f o r e i s n o te n t i t l e d t o h a b e a s r e l i e f o n th i s c l a i m. III. F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, th e d eci si o n o f th e d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I RME D.