FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 19 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 6- cr-0 01 61 -CC- JED-2 TAM TRAN NGUYEN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Tam TranNgu y en , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric tco urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n t o v acat e se nt en ce, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 . W e

gr an te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y wit h re sp ectto th e fo ll owi ng is su es : (1 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g Ng uyen's 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n b as edon a fi nd in g t ha t t he § 2 25 5 m ot io n was un ti m el y ? (2 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g Ng uyen's 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n b as edon a fi nd in g t ha t t he cla im s ra is edinth e § 22 55 m ot io n wer e p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed ? (3 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erred , pu rs ua ntto Cl is by v. Jo ne s , 96 0 F .2d92 5, 9 35 -3 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) ( en ba nc ), by notad dr es si ng al l o f Ngu y en 's c la im s ra is edinhi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n? (4 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itfai le d t o p ro vi de a sp eci fic ba si s fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w un de r Bro ad wa te r v. Un it ed

St at es , 29 2 F .3d13 02 , 13 04 -0 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ? Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we vac at e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g Ngu y en ’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n andrem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . I. In19 98 , Ngu y enwas c on vi ct edfol lo win g ajury tri al of: (1) op erat in g a n in te rs ta te rack et eeri ng en te rp ris e, in vi ol at io n o f th e Rac ke te eri ng Inf lu en cedan d Co rruptOrgani zat io ns Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 62 (c) (C ou nt1); (2) co ns pi rin g t o op erat e an in te rs ta te rack et eeri ng en te rp ris e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 96 2( d) (Co un t 2 ); a nd(3) Hob bs Act ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 51 (a) a nd2 (Co un t 2 8) . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edNgu y ento co nc urren t l ife sen te nc es for 2Co un ts 1 an d 2 . W e aff irmed Ngu y en ’s con vi ct io ns on di rectap pe al , bu t v acat ed hi s s en te nc es . Uni te d Sta te s v. N gu yen , 25 5 F .3d13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). On re m an d, t he di st ric t co urt re se nt en cedNgu y ento a to ta l t erm of 7 20 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Ng uyen ap pe al edfor a se co ndti m e, an d we a ffi rm edhi s se nt en ces on Decem

be r 27 , 20 02 . Uni te d Sta te s v. N gu yen , 55 Fed .App x. 9 00 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . On Ma rch 24 , 20 03 , les s than 9 0 d ay s l at er, Ng uyen fi le d a pe ti ti on fora writof cer ti or ar i wit h t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. The Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Ng uyen’s p et it io n fo r cer ti or ar ion May 5, 20 03 . Ng uy en v. Uni te d Sta te s , 53 8 U.S. 1 02 2, 1 23 S.Ct . 19 51 , 15 5 L.Ed .2d86 6 (2 00 3) . Ngu y enfil edhi s pr o s e § 2 25 5 m ot io n o n Ap ril 12 , 20 04 . His m ot io n rai se d ato ta l o f ni ne cla im s, s om e o f whi ch in vo lv edsubs ta nt iv e is su es an d s om e of whi ch were cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Am on g o th er thi ng s, Ngu y enass ert edth athi s ap pe ll at e co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y fai li ng to rai se th e subs ta nt iv e is su es pre se nt edinhi s § 22 55 m ot io n o n d ire ct ap pe al . The g ov ern m en t m ov edto di sm is s Ng uyen’s § 22 55 m ot io n, co nt en di ng th atth e m ot io n was un ti m el y an d t ha t Ng uyen’s s ub st an ti ve cla im s wer e pr oc edur al ly defau lt edbe cau se he fai le d t o ra is e th em on di rectap pe al . The di stric t co urt d en ie d Ng uyen’s § 22 55 m ot io n. Fi rs t, t he co urt co nc lu de d t ha t al l o f Ngu y en ’s cla im s wer e b arre d b y th e ap pl ic ab le on e-year 3st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Next , th e co urt d et erm in edth atNgu y en ’s subs ta nt iv e cl ai m s

were p ro cedur al ly barre d b ecau se Ngu y enha d fa il edto rai se th os e cl ai m s o n di rectap pe al , andha d n otsh own cau se or p reju di ce t o e xc us e th e p ro cedur al de fau lt . The co urt d idno t el ab or at e fu rth er o n t he ba si s fo r it s d eci si on . Ngu y en fil eda m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t, wh ic h t he di stric t co urt d en ie d. II. A di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f a s ta tu te of l im it at io ns is a le ga l d et erm in at io n t ha t we re vi ew de no vo . W as hi ng to n v . Uni te d Sta te s , 24 3 F.3 d 1 29 9, 1 30 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The An ti te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty Act o f 19 96 (“ AEDPA”) es tabl is he d aon e-year st atut e o f li m it at io ns forfil in g a § 2 25 5 m ot io n, wh ic h b eg in s t o ru n o n t he lat es t o f fo urtri gg eri ng da te s, the on e rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al be in g “ th e d at e o n wh ic h t he jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on be co m es fin al .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( f)(1 ). If a p ris on er fi le s a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f cer ti or ar iwit h t he Supr em e Co urt fo ll owi ng hi s d ire ctap pe al , hi s co nv ic ti on be co m es fin al when th e Supr em e Co urt ei th er d en ie s cer ti or ar i oris su es a de ci si on on th e m eri ts . W as hi ng to n , 24 3 F .3dat 1 30 0- 01 . Oth erwi se , th e co nv ic ti on be co m es fin al aft er the 90 -d ay ti m e p eri odfor

fil in g ape ti ti on for cer ti or ar iex pi res . Cla

y v. Uni te d Sta te s , 53 7 U.S. 5 22 , 53 2, 1 23 S.Ct . 10 72 , 10 79 , 15 5 L.Ed .2d88 (20 03 ); Ka uf man n v . Uni te d Sta te s , 28 2 F .3d13 36 , 13 39 4(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) .

Inth is cas e, Ngu y enfil eda ti m el y pe ti ti onforcert io rari on Marc h 2 4, 2 00 3. The Supr em e Co urt d en ie d cer ti or ar ionMay 5, 20 03 , so Ngu y en ’s con vi ct io n be cam e fi na l o n t ha t d at e. S ee Wash in gt on , 24 3 F .3dat 1 30 0- 01 . Ngu y enfil ed hi s § 22 55 m ot io n o n Ap ril 12 , 20 04 , bef or e th e o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns ha d ru n. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( f). The refo re, the di st ric t co urt erredin co nc lu di ng th at Ngu y en ’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n was un ti m el y . III. “ Whe n re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n, we re vi ew fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r an d que st io ns of l aw de no vo .” Rho de v. Uni te d St at es , 58 3 F .3d12 89 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A pri so ne r who fai ls to rai se an is su e o n d ire ctap pe al is pro cedur al ly barre d fr om rai si ng th atcla im

in a § 2 25 5 m ot io n, ab se nta sh owi ng of c au se an d p reju di ce o r a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. N yh uis , 21 1 F .3d13 40 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). A clai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l m ay sat is fy th e cau se ex cep ti on to a pr oc edur al ba r, bu t o nl y

if t he cla im

ha s m eri t. Id
. An in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m ha s m eri t if “ th e arg um en ts th e d efen da ntall eg es hi s co un se l fa il edto rai se were s ig ni fic an t en ou gh to ha ve affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f hi s ap pe al .” Id
. Inrul in g o n a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt m us t s etforth en ou gh 5an al y si s t o p ro vi de a su ffi ci en t b as is forap pe ll at e rev ie w. Bro ad wa te r , 29 2 F .3d at13 03 -0 4. In a si m

pl e cas e whe re i t i s p la in fro m th e rec or d t ha t t he pri so ne r is no t en ti tl edto an y

rel ie f, a m ere s umm ary de ni al m ay be ad equa te . Id
. at 1 30 3. Whe re, h owe ve r, th ere m ay be so m e m eri t t o t he pri so ne r’s cl ai m s i f supp orte d b y th e rec or d, the di st ric t co urt m us t s etforth fin di ng s o f fac t o r co nc lu si on s o f la w ex pl ai ni ng why itha s re

jecte d t ho se cla im s. Id
. at 1 30 3- 04 . Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv edth atNgu y en“ ha s fa il edto est ab li sh cau se an d p reju di ce,” b utth e co urt d idno t ex pl ai n h ow i t re ach edth atco nc lu si on . Alt ho ug h Ng uyen d idno t ra is e h is subs ta nt iv e cl ai m s o n d ire ctap pe al , he a ss ert ed th athe was u nabl e to do so be cau se hi s ap pe ll at e co un se l p ro vi de d h im wit h in effe ct iv e as si st an ce. If Ng uyen’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m is m eri to rio us , it wou ldpro vi de cau se to ex cu se th e p ro cedur al de fau lt . Se e Nyh uis , 21 1 F .3dat 13 44 . Alth ou gh Ngu y en ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m ul ti m at el y

m ay be un su cces sf

ul , itdo es no t ap pe ar t o b e co m pl et el y lac ki ng inm eri t o n i ts face . It i s no t cl ear f

ro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er wh ethe r th e co urt co ns id eredNgu y en ’s cl ai m th athi s ap pe ll at e co un se l was in effe ct iv e, an d, i f so , why itco nc lu de d t ha t th e cl ai m was m eri tl es s. Be cau se th e rec or d d oe s n otpro vi de a su ffi ci en t b as is to rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Ng uyen h adfai le d t o s ho w cau se an d pr ejud ic e, we m

us t v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er an d re m an d fo r fu rth er 6fin di ng s. Se e Bro ad wa te r , 29 2 F .3dat 1 30 3- 04 .

IV. As n ot edab ov e, in co ns id eri ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n, we re vi ew qu es ti on s o f la w de no vo . Rho de , 58 3 F .3dat 1 29 0. In Cl is by , we ex pl ai ne d t ha t d is tri ctco urts m us t re so lv e al l cl ai m s fo r rel ie f pr es en te d i n a pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r habe as rel ie f is gra nt ed orde ni ed . Cl is by , 96 0 F .2dat 9 35 -3 6. When th e d is tri ctco urt fa il s t o d o s o, we

“ wil l v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d the cas e fo r co ns id erat io n o f al l re m ai ni ng cla im s.” Id
. at 9 38 . Alth ou gh Cl is by in vo lv eda st at e p ris on er’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4, i ts ho ld in g a ls o i s ap pl ic ab le to § 2 25 5 m ot io ns fil edby feder al pri so ne rs . Rho de , 58 3 F .3dat 1 29 1. In th is cas e, th e di str i c t c o urt co nc lu de d th at al l of Ngu y en ’s cl ai m s were un ti m el y , an d th at hi s subs ta nt iv e cl ai m s were pr oc edur al ly barred . Bec au se th e di st ric t co u r t r e so lv ed al l of th e cl ai m s rai se d by Ngu y en , no Cl is by vi ol at io n o c c urred . Se e Cl is by , 96 0 F.2 d at 93 5- 36 . Nev ert he le ss , as de sc rib ed ab o v e , t h e di st ric t cou rt erred in co nc lu di ng th at Ngu y en ’s cl ai m s were un ti m el y , an d fail ed to ex pl ai n i ts co nc lu si on th athi s s ub st an ti ve cla im s wer e p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed .

7Acco rd in gl y , we va cat e th e di st ric t co urt’s or de r an d rem an d so th at th e di st ric t co urt

m ay (1 ) ad dr es s th e m eri ts of Ngu y en ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s, an d (2 ) fu rth er ex pl ai n it s co nc lu si on th at Ngu y en can no t sh ow cau se or pr ejud ic e to ex cu se th e pr oc edur al de fau ltof h is subs ta nt iv e cl ai m s. VACATED AND REMANDED.

8