2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-19-2007 

# U SA v . S hedrick

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2329

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . S he dr ick " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 654. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/654P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 2329

UN I TED STATES

v. J AM E S S HE DR I CK ,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 02- cr - 00523) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

A r gued J une 1, 2006 O pi ni on Fi l ed February28, 2007 Panel R ehea r i ng G r ant ed and V aca t ed A pr i l 26, 2007 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S, and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y19, 2007)2 Pet erA

. L evi n, E s qui r e ( A r gued) 1927 H ami l t on St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el forA ppel l ant Pat r i ck L. M eeha n U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ober tA

. Z auzmer A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief o f A p p e a ls T hom as P. H ogan, J r . ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge. J ames Shedr i ck appe al s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al o f h is 28 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n fo r habeas cor pus al l egi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of counsel on t w o gr ounds

. T he3 G overnm ent fi r s t cont es t s ourj ur i s di ct i on, how ever , beca us e of a n a p p e llate a n d c o llate ra l-re v iew w a iv e r c o n tain e d in Shedr i ck’ s sign ed pl ea a gr eement
. W e conc l ude thatw e have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s ap p e a l r el at i ng t o i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance - ofcouns el cl ai m s ; to h o l d ot herw i s e coul d w or k a mi s carr i age of justi ce . W e n ex t aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f S h ed ri ck ’s c laim th a t h is c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to a d v ise h im abouts ent enci ng m at t er s , but concl ude, contr aryt o t he D i s t r i ct C our t , t hati neff

ect i venes s of couns el pr event ed Shedr i ck fr om t i m el y appea l i ng. T her efor e, w e vac at e hi s s ent ence and r emand th is c a se w ith d ire c tio n s f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to re -e n ter it. Shedr i ck w i l l t h en be abl e t o fi l e a t i m el ydi r ectappea l , w hi ch w e w i l l cons i deri n t he norm al cour s e. I . Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound I n t he ea r l ym or ni ng of J ul y11, 2002, Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce O ffi cer s K ey a M as on, R aym ond R ut t er , and J oy G al l en- R ui z, a lo n g w ith S e rg e a n t B e v e r ly P e m b ro o k , w e re o n p a tro l in Phi l adel phi a’ s 12t h D i s t r i ct
. O ffi cer M as on r es ponded t o a 911 emer gencycal l r epor t i ng a man w i t h a gun l ocat ed at64t h St r eet and G r eenw ayA venue. U pon arr i vi ng att hataddr es s, O ffi cer M a s o n h e a rd g u n s h o ts b u t d id n o t s e e a n y o n e in th e a re a . Ser geantPem br ook al s o r es ponded i m m edi at el yt o t he 911 cal l and, li ke O ffi cerM as on, di d notfi nd any one att he s cene . A ft era s hor tt i m e, how ever , Pem br ook obs erve d a m an— l at eri dent i fi ed as Shedr i ck

— s t a n d i n g i n th e mi ddl e of the4 i nt er s ect i on hol di ng a l ar ge s i l verr evol veri n hi s r i ghthand. Pem br ook m ade a pr i or i t y r adi o cal l for back- up, s t at i ng t hatt he s u s p e c tw a s a r m e d a n d n o ti n c u s t o d y. B ythat ti m e, M a s o n h ad joine d P em b roo k

. O ff icers R ut t er and G al l en- R ui z, w ho w er e r i di ng t ogether , al s o arr i ved att he s cene . Pem br ook and M as on s t ood i n fr ont of a pol i ce c ar a n d a ttem p ted to e n g a g e S h e d ric k w h ile R u tter a n d G a llen -R u iz began t o appr oach hi m fr om cover ed pos i t i ons behi nd parked car s . T he off

i cer s r epea t edl yi ns truct ed Shedri ck t o dr op t he gun , b u t h e r efus ed. H e poi nt ed the gun att he s kyand at t empt ed t o fi r e thr ee s hot s . T he gun fa i l ed t o di s char ge. T h e o f f ice rs r e p e a ted th e ir o rd e r f o r S h e d ric k to d ro p h is gun. H e agai n ai m ed the gun upw ar d and pul l ed the tr i gger t hr ee mor e t i m es . Y et ag ain the gun fa i l ed t o fi r e. Shedr i ck th e n o p e n e d u p th e c y lin d e r o f th e re v o lv e r, an d e m p tysh e ll cas i ngs fel l outof the w eapon. W hen t hi s occurr ed, t he pol i ce g an g -t ac k led a n d d isarm ed h im

. O ff icer R u tt er c all ed in a re p o rt in d ic a tin g th a t S h e d ri c k w a s in c u s to d y . Im m ed iat elyaf

ter S h ed ri ck w as d etaine d , the o f f ic e rs w er e appr oache d byL i N guy en and Pat r i ci a E dw ar ds

. N guy en a n d E d w a rd s sta ted th a t th e yh a d b e e n in a v a n o n th e ir w a yto w or k w hen Shedr i ck had a ppear ed on the s t r eetand s t ar t ed fi r i ng s hot s att hei rvehi cl e. O ne of the bul l et s s t ruck the fr ont hood of the van. A s econd bul l etpenetr at ed the w i nds hi el d and t r avel ed di r ect l ybetw een N guy en, w ho w as dr i vi ng, andS h e d ric k p le d g u iltyin O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 in th e P h ilad e lp h ia 1 C o u rto f C o m m o n P leas to p o sses sio n w ith inten t t o d eli v er a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ( coca i ne) and unl aw fu l p o s s es s i on of an u n lic e n s e d f

ir e a rm .
5 E dw a r d s , who was i n t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r s e a t
. Ngu y en and E dw ar ds r epor t ed that th ey w entt o a pol i ce s t at i on one bl ock aw ayt o r epor tt he s hooti n g . W h en t heyr etur ned t o t he s pot w her e the s hoot i ng had oc cu rre d, t heyw i t nes s ed the pol i ce t ackl i ng Shedr i ck.
T h e p o l i c e t r a c e d th e g u n in S h e d ri c k ’s p o s s e s s io n , a Sm i t h & W es s on . 357 cal i ber r evol ver , t o an i ndi vi dual named A k i B ric k h o u se . B ric k h o u se w a s c h a rg e d w ith , an d p led g u ilty t o , t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e we a p o n t o a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n ( S h e d r i c k )

. He al s o as s er t ed thatShedr i ck had been se l l i ng cr ack c ocai ne on a r egul arbas i s fr om a l ocat i on i n W es tPhi l adel phi a and ha d carr i ed the Sm i t h & W esson w hil e deali ng drugs. Shedr i ck w as char ged w i t h bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 9 22( g) ( 1)

. H e s i gned a w r i t t en agr eementw i t h t he G overnm ent , pl eadi ng gui l t yt o t hat ch a r g e a n d s p e c i f

i c a l l y a d mi t t i n g t h a t ( 1 ) h e p o s s e s s ed t he r evol ver , ( 2) he had a pr i orfel onyr ecor d, and ( 3) t he r evol ver 1 had tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. H ow ever , Shedr i ck vi gor ous l ycont es t ed anyi nvol vem en t in t he van s hoot i ng ( as d e sc rib e d b yN g u y e n a n d E d w a rd s) a n d a n yd ru g d e a lin g w h ile6 a rm e d w ith th e re v o lv e r ( a s d e s c ri b e d b yB ri c k h o u s e ).
T h e p lea a g ree m en t exp resslys ta ted that S h ed ri ck ’s m ax im u m p o tential sen tenc e w as te n y e a rs’ im p ri so n m en t. It w enton t o not e thatt he G overnm entw as perm i t t ed to “ m ake w h a te v e r s e n te n c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n a s to im p ri s o n m e n t . . . [i t ] deems a ppr opr i at e. ” I ndeed, bot h par t i es w er e “f r ee t o ar gue t he app li ca bi l i t yof anyot herpr ovi s i on of the Sent enci ng G uidel i nes, i ncludi ng off ense co nd uc t, offense ch aract eri st i cs, c ri m in a l h is to ry, a d

ju s tm e n ts a n d d e p a rt u re s .” T he agr eemental s o i ncl uded a pr ovi s i on w ai vi ng not onl ym os tappea l s butal s o col l at er al at t acks

. I ts t at ed: 10. I n excha nge fort he undert aki ngs m ade byt he governm enti n ent er i ng this pl ea a gr eement , t he d e f e n d a n t v o lu n tar ilya n d e x p re ss lyw a iv e s a ll r i ght s t o appea l orcol l at er al ly at t ack the defe ndant ’ s convi ct i on, s ent ence , oranyo ther m at t err el at i ng t o t hi s pr os ecut ion , w hethers uch a r i ghtt o appea l orcol l at er al at t ack a r i s es under 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 7 4 2 , 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 9 1 , 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 5 , o ra n yo t h e rp r o v i s i o n o f l a w.

a . N ot w i t hs t a n d i n g t h e wai v er pr ovi s i on above, i f the governm ent appea l s fr om t he s ent ence , t hen the defe ndantm ayfi l e a di r ectappea l7 of hi s s ent ence . b

. If th e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t ap p e a l, t hen notw i t hs t andi ng t he w ai ver pr ovi s i on s et for t h i n par agr aph 10 above, t he defenda ntm ayfi l e a d ire c t ap p e a l b u t m a y r a is e o n ly c laim s th a t: i

. t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n ce ex ce e d s th e s ta tu to ry m axi m um ; or i i

. t he s ent enci ng j udge e r r oneous l y d epar t e d up w ard from t he o t herw i se appl i cable sent enci n g gui del i ne r ange. T h e D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed a pl ea he ar i ng i n N ovember 2 0 0 2

. D u ri n g S h ed ri ck ’s gu il typ lea c o ll o q u y , the C o u rt confi r me d a n d r e i n f

o r c e d t h e t e r ms o f

t h e wr i t t e n p l ea agr eement
. A tt he out s etof the hea r i ng, t he C our ts t at ed: A n d a p lea a g re e m e n t h a s b e e n re a c h e d a n d it i s r ecor ded i n w r i t i ng and w i l l be fi l ed ce r t ai nl yat t h e e n d o f

t h i s p r o c e e d i n g . B u t , m o s ti m p o r t a n t l y, al t hough t he pl ea a gr eemen t sta t es al l of the8 agr eement s and unde r s t a n d i ngs t hatexi s tbetw een t he def endant , defe n s e couns el , and the G overnm ent , i tdoes not r ecomm end a s ett erm of in c a rc e ra tio n a s b in d in g u p o n th is C o u rt. U l t i m at el y , t he appr opr i at e s ent ence w oul d be l eft t o t he exe r ci s e of the C ourt ’s di s cr et i on bas ed upon i nfor m at i on pr es ent ed bybot h s i d es and bas ed upon a rev i ew of the Sent enci ng G uidel i nes. L a ter , the C o u rt re itera ted th a t th e se n ten c e w o u ld b e lef t to its di s cr et i on and th att her e w er e no “a gr eement s w i t h any one about w h a t th e rig h t se n ten c e sh o u ld b e .” S h e d ric k c o n f irm e d th is u n d e rsta n d in g . H e a lso a c k n o w led g e d th a t n o o th e r a g re e m e n ts exis t ed b et w een him sel f and t he G ov ernm ent except tho se cont ai ned i n t he w r i t t en pl ea agr eement
. T he C our t then made cl eart o Shedr i ck thatt he m axi m um s ent ence i n hi s cas e w as t en y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i o n . Shedr i ck di d expr es s s om e conf us i on w hethert he fa ct s all eged i n t he pl ea a gr eementi ncl uded an admi s s i on t hat he ai m ed or s hot at pol i ce of fi cer s , pr om pt i ng t he C o u rt to c lar if

yth a t h e h a d o n lya g re e d to p le a d to th e b a sic fac t s of pos s es s i ng t he gun as a convi ct ed fe l on and thatany ot heri s s ues w er e l eftt o t he part i es t o ar gue ats ent enci ng. A ft er Shedr i ck ent er ed hi s pl ea, t he Pr obat i o n O ffi ce p rep are d a p rese n tenc e re p o rt(“P S R ”). It calcu lat ed S h ed ri ck ’s bas e off ens e l evel at 2 0

. I tt hen r ecomm ended a four

- l evel enhanc ementunderU

. S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual9 § 2 K 2

. 1 (b)(5 ) du e to S h ed ri ck ’s prior f elon yco n v ict ion fo r a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e and a thr ee- l evel deduct i on under U

. S

. S

. G

. § 3E 1. 1 for accep t ance of r espon si bil i ty . T h ose adj us t me n t s r e s u l t e d i n a n o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 1 t h a t , c o mbi ned w i t h a cr i m i nal h ist or ycat egoryof I I I , y i el ded a Sent enci ng G uidel i nes range o f 46 t o 5 7 m on t hs.
T w o w eeks pr i ort o s ent enci ng, t he G overn m en t f i l ed a m emora ndum w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tar gui ng t hat( 1) Shedr i ck w as su b ject t o a f o u r-l ev el en h an ce m en t fo r po sses sing a firearm i n co nnect i on w i t h anotherfel onyoffe ns e ( s peci fi cal l y , drug d e a lin g ), an d (2 ) th e C o u rt sh o u ld d e p a rt u p w a rd e ig h t lev e ls fr om t he es t abl i s hed G ui del i nes r ange be caus e Shedr i ck had di s char ged t he w eapon dur i ng t he com m i s s i on of hi s offe ns e ( by s hoot i ng ata van oc cupi ed byt w o peopl e)

. Shedr i ck obj ect ed.
T he D i s tr ic tC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng dur i ng w hi ch the pot ent i al enhanc ementforpos s es s i on i n connec t i on w i t h another fel ony offe ns e, as w el l as t he upw ar d departur e for s hoot i ng att he van, w er e cont es t ed. T he G overnm entcal l ed t w o w i t nes s es t o pr ovi de a f actual b asis t o s uppor tt he e n h a n c e m e n t a n d d e p a rt u re : B ri c k h o u s e a n d N g u y e n . B r i ckhous e t es t i fi ed t h at S hedr i ck had be en s el l i ng coca i ne on a r egu la rbas i s and thatbot h Shedr i ck and hi s hal fbr ot her , T ar i k R obi ns on, had ca r r i ed the Sm i t h & W es s on re v o lv e r w h ile d e a lin g d ru g s .

### Be c aus e She dri c k wa s we ari ng abl a c k s hi rt whe n arr e s t e d, 2 

### it is no ta ble that Nguyen te stifie d that the shoo te r had been w e ari n g awh i t e s h i rt
. Wh e n c o n f r o nt e d b y th at

i n c o n s i s t e n c y, Nguye n a dmi tt e d that

he ha d foc us e d on the gun and c oul d have m ad e a mistak e ab o ut th e co lo r o f th e sh o o ter’s sh irt. 10 N g u y e n test ifi ed that h e a n d P atri cia E d w ard s w ere dr i vi ng t o w or k i n a r ed van a tappr oxim atel y5: 40 a. m . on t he dat e of Shedr i ck’ s arr est , w hen a bl ack man hol di ng a s i l ver r evol vers t ar t ed s hoot i ng att hem

. T he G overnm entpr ovi ded phot ogr aphs t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t s how i ng t hat bul l et s s t ruck the l eftfr onthood of the van a nd t he mi d- w i nds hi el d, pas s i ng betw een the tw o pas s enger s . N guy en r ecounted goi ng t o a pol i ce s t at i on t o r epor tt he sho o ti ng, r eturni ng t o w her e i thad occurr ed, and w i t nes s i ng t h e p ol i ce t ackl i ng t he man w ho had s hotatt he van. 2
A ft erB r i ckhous e’ s and N guy en’ s t es t i m ony , Shedr i ck t es t i fi ed t o hi s ver s i on of ev ent s . H e admi t t ed thathe had the gun i n hi s pos s es s i on, butdeni ed eve r firi n g it

. H e al s o s t at ed t hathe di d notknow B r ickh o us e and ha d nevers een N guy en pr i ort o t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. T h e G o v e rn m e n t an d d e f e n se c o u n se l th e n e n g a g e d in ext ended a r gum ent s aboutt he enha ncementand depa r tur e. T he defe ns e cont ended thatt her e w as i ns uffi ci ent evi dence t o s how t hatShedr i ck ei t herhad bee n deali n g d rugs orhad fi r ed the sh o ts th at st ruc k N g u y en ’s va n . T h u s, itw as th e d ef en se’sA p p lica tio n o f b o th th e f

o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t an d e ig h t- 3 l evel departur e 

### yield ed a Gu id elin es ran g e o f 8 7 to 1 0 8 m o nth s. 11 pos i t i on t hatShedr i ck s h o ul d r ece i ve a s ent ence w i t hi n t he s ta n d a rd G u id e lin e s ra n g e

— 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s . T he G overnm ent , on t he othe rhand, m ai nt ai ned that beca us e the evi dence demonst r at ed thatShe dr i ck had c arr i ed the gun w hi l e dea l i ng drugs ( as t es t i fi ed t o byB r i ckhous e) and that Shedr i c k s h o ta tt h e v a n ( a s t e s t i f i e d t o b yNgu y e n ) , b o t h t he f o u r-le v e l en han cem ent and eight -l evel upw ard de p a rtu re sh o u ld app l y . Itrecom m end ed to the C ou rta sent ence of 100 m on t hs’ i ncar cer at i on. 3
A t t he cl os e of t he hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that B r i ckhous e and N guy en w er e cr edible w i t nes s es and thus ap p li ed the f

o u r-l ev el en h an ce m en t and eigh t- leve l up w ard departur e. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our ts ent ence d Shedr i ck t o 96 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i o n to b e fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . T he Di s t r i c t Cou r t a p p o i n t e d Sh e d r i c k n e w c o u n s e l for purpos es of appe al on J ul y31, 2003 ( ov er fi ve mont hs aft er se n ten c in g ), as S h e d ric k ’s trial c o u n se l h a d n o t f iled a n a p p e a l. O n A u g u s t18, 2003 ( appr oxi m at el ys i x m ont hs aft er s ent enci ng) , hi s new couns el fi l ed a mot i on forenl ar gementof t i m e t o sub m i ta no t i ce of app e a l n u n c pr o t unc . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e n ied th e m o ti o n o n A u g u st 27 , 2 0 0 3 , an d o u r C o u rt

### We also ap p o intedS h edrickn e w c o u n sel to p ursu e th is 4 

### ap p eal. 12 di s m i s s ed the appe al as unt i m el yon N ovember25, 2003. Shedr i ck ( t hr ough couns el ) pr ocee ded t o fi l e a 28 U

. S. C

. § 2255 habeas cor

pus pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch w as deni ed. H e pet i t i oned pr o s e o u rC o u r tf o ra c e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y, w hi ch w as gr ant ed fort w o i s s ues : “w hether c ouns el w as inef fe cti v e fo r fa il ing to adv ise [S h ed ri ck ] o f a p o ssible u p w ard departur e ats ent enci ng; and w hethercouns el w as i neff ect i ve for fi l i n g a n u n t i m el yapp eal

. ” B efore w e reach t hese i ssues, 4 how ever, w e addr es s t he G overnm ent ’ s j ur i s di ct i onal cont ent i on. I I . Juri s di ct i on A ccor di ng t o t he G overnm ent , t he appe al and col l at er al at t ack w ai vercont ai ned i n S h edr i ck’ s w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement s t r i ps our j ur i s di ct i on. N ot s o. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Khat t ak , we j oi n ed the cour t s of appe al s fort en otherci r cui t s and hel d t hat

“ [ w ] a i v e r s o f a p p e a l , i f e n t e r e d i n t o k n o w i n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y, ar e val i d, unl es s t hey w or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” 273 F. 3d 557, 563 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. T hough Khat t ak w e n t o n to sa yth a t, i f a w a iv e r is v a lid , “ w e h a v e n o ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e m e rits of [a n] appea l , ” i d. , w e re c e n tly c l a r i f ie d th a t s ta te m e n t, s ee U n itedS ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 4 8 3 F

. 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 1

– 0 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). “[N ] ot w i t hs t a n d i n g th e s t a t ementi n Khat tak , t hi s [C ] our tr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on overt he appea l by a defe ndant w ho ha[s ] s i gned an13 appel l at e w ai ver . ” I

d. at203. T hi s does n o t u n derm i ne the p ra ct i cal bit e of su ch w ai vers, ho w ever. F or as s t at ed in b o th Khat t ak and G w in n e tt , “w e w i l l notexer ci s e [our ] j ur i s d ict i on t o r ev i e w t h e me r i t s o f [ a d e f e n d a n t ’ s ] a p p e a l i f

we c o n cl ude t hats he know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved herr i ghtt o appea l un l e s s t h e r e s u l t wou l d wor k a mi s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e . ” I d. at 2 0 3 ; Khat t ak , 273 F. 3d 562–63. I n s hor t , w e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s case , butw i l l gener al l ynotexer ci s e i tabs ent com pell i ng reas on s. A t f irst g lan c e , itd o e s a p p e a r th a t S h e d ric k w a iv e d h is r i ghtt o appea l and col l at er al l y at t ack hi s s ent ence i n par agr aph 1 0 o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t. H o w e v e r, th e a g re e m e n t g o e s o n to s t at e that a n appeal i s pr es erved i f anyof thr ee c ondi t i ons o cc u rs. T h eyare , to rep ea t, (1 ) a G o v ern m en t app ea l, (2) a s ent ence exce edi ng t he s t atut orym axi m um , or( 3) an err oneous upw ar d departur e fr om t he otherw i s e appl i cabl e Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s ra n g e . It is un d isp u ted th a t th e f irst tw o p re d ica tes d o n o t ap p ly her e; t he G overnm entdi d notappeal, and S hedr i ck’ s s ent ence o f 9 6 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m e n t d o es n o t exc ee d the s tatu tory m axi m um of t en y ea rs . Shedr i ck mai nt ai ns , how ever , t hatt he t hi r d condi t i on appl i es . Speci fi cal l y , he ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as nots uffi ci ent t o s uppor t t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hat h e d isc h a rg e d h is g u n , w h ich w a s th e b a sis o f th e C o u rt’s e ig h t-Shedr i ck’ s br i ef m i s t akenl y l um ps t ogetherhi s enhanc ement 5 and hi s upw ar d departur e. A n “enha ncement ” i s an adj us t m ent t o t he bas e off

ense level as s peci fi cal l ypr ovi ded byt he G u idelines , w h ere as a n “u p w ard d ep arture” is a d iscre tion ary adj us t m ent to t he G ui del i nes r ange onc e ca l cul at ed. A ft er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), th e d if f e re n c e is now r epr es ent ed i n t he di s t i nct i on betw een st eps one and tw o as s etouti n U

ni t ed S tates v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). W h il e S h ed ri ck h as a ri g h t t o ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s upw ar d departur e under hi s pl ea w ai ver , t he l i t er al w or ds of that w ai verm ake c l ear t hat he has no concomi t ant r i ght t o appea l t he e n h a n c e m e n t. 14 l evel upw ar d departur e. H e furt herar gues thati neff ect i ve 5 a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l p re v e n ted h im f ro m tim e lya p p e a lin g th is al l egedl yerr oneous departur e. T he G overnm ent , on t he ot herhand, cl ai m s t hatShedr i ck “is n o t argu ing that the C o u rterro n eo u slyg ran ted a n u p w ard departur e, butm er el yi s ar gui ng thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve for all eg e d lyn o t i n fo rm ing h im that the p o tential fo r an u p w ard d e p a rtu re e x iste d .” G o v ’t B r. at 2 8 . W e d isa g re e . A t it s esse n ce , S h ed ri ck ’s arg u m en t i s tha t, as a resu lt o f c o u n sel’s defi ci entper for m ance , he ( 1) fai l ed t o under s t and t he ful l eff ect of hi s gui l t ypl ea as i tr el at ed t o upw ar d departur es , and ( 2) fai l ed t i m el yt o appea l t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s upw ar d departur e, w hi ch he w as ent i t l ed t o appea l undert he expr es s term s of the pl ea a gr eementw ai ver . E nfor cing a col l at er al

- at t ack w ai ver w her e cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entl aw y eri ng pr event ed Shedr i ckO ur d eci s i on i n Khat t ak l eftt he mi s carr i age- of- j us t i ce 6 d eterm ination o p e n -e n d ed , d ep en d ing o n v ariou s fa ctors i dent i fi ed i n U

ni t ed S tate s v. Teet er , 25 7 F

. 3d 14 , 25 –2 6 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), e. g. , how cl earand gr ave a n err orexi s t ed, t he ef fec t of thaterr oron t he par t i es , and the ext ent t o w hi ch the def endant a c q u ie s c e d in th e e rr o r. Kha t t ak , 273 F. 3d at563. W e not ed, how ever , that t he Seventh C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s has s peci fi cal l y hel d t hati neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el qual i fi es as a mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce s uffi ci entt o over come a w ai ver - ofa p p e a l p ro v is io n . I

d. at562 ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Joi ner , 183 F .3 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. P oi ndexter , N o. 05- 7635, ___ F. 3d ___, 2007 W L 1845119, at * 2

– 8 (4 th C ir. Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 ) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. Tapp , N o. 05- 302 2 2 , ___ F. 3 d ___ , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 8 3 9 2 7 7 ( 5 t h Ci r . J u n e 28, 2 0 0 7 ); C a mpus ano v. U ni t ed Stat es , 442 F. 3d 770, 773–77( 2d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); G om ez - D i az v. U ni t ed Stat es , 433 F. 3d 788, 791–94 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sandoval

- Lopez , 4 09 F. 3d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 5

– 9 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); U n itedS ta tes v . G a rr e tt , 402 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 4

– 6 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Teet er , 257 F. 3d at25 n. 9; U n it ed St at es v. Her nandez , 2 4 2 F

. 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3

– 1 4 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Jem is on , 2 3 7 F

. 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 6 n . 8 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 15 from under s t andi ng hi s pl ea orfr om fi l i ng a di r ectappea l as perm i t t ed by hi s pl ea a gr eementw oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of ju stic e . In th is c o n tex t, w e w il l e x e r c ise o u r ju risd ictio n to

6 con si der Sh edri ck’s i neff ect i ve-ass i st ance-of-cou nsel cl ai m s.16 III. M er it s A . Ineff

ecti ven ess of

Cou n sel for Failu re to A dvis e Shedr ick fi r s tar gues t hathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of cou n sel dur i ng hi s pl ea pr oces s as a r es ul tof couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o advi s e hi m about a pot ent i al enhanc ementor u p w a rd d e p a rt u re a t s e n te n c in g . A c c o rd in g to S h e d ri c k , a “funda m ent al cons i der at i on for[hi m ] i n det erm i ni ng w hether

. . . to a c c e p t th e g u iltyp lea w a s th e len g th o f se n ten c e h e c o u ld expec tt o r ece i ve. ” U ndert he tw o- par tt es tof Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ), S h e d ric k m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is at t or ney ’ s per for m ance w as defi ci entand t hat he w as pr ej udi ced b ythe d ef

ici en cy . T h at i s, h e m u st pro v e th at co u n sel’s per for m ance “fe l l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , ” id . a t 6 8 8 , an d th a t “th e re is a re a so n a b le p rob abi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , t he r es ul t of t he proc eedi ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent
. ” Id

. at694. S h e d r i c k c a n n o ts a t i s f

yt h e s e r e q u i r e me n t s . I n d e e d , we have l o n g h e l d t h a ta n e r r o n e o u s s e n t e n c i n g p r e d i c t i o n by couns el i s not i neff

ect i ve ass i s t ance of counse l w her e, as her e, a n a d e q u a t e p le a h e a ri n g w a s c o n d u c te d

. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 254 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( coun s el not i neff ect i ve for al l egedl ypr om i s i ng defe ndanta s ent ence of “no m or e than 71 month s” w her e def endantw as advi s ed i n open-17 co u rtco ll o q u yo f p o tentia l m ax im u m sen tenc e a n d there w ere n o o th e r p ro m ise s regardi n g se n ten c e ); U n itedS ta tes v . M

u sta fa , 2 3 8 F. 3d 485, 492 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[A ] nyal l eged m i s r epr es ent at i ons t hat [def endant ’ s ] for m er couns el m ayhave m ade r egar di ng s ent enci ng cal cul at i ons w er e di s pel l ed w hen [def endant ] w as inf

or m ed i n open courtt hatt her e w as no g u a ra n tee a s to se n ten c e , an d th a t th e c o u rt c o u ld se n ten c e h im to th e m a x im u m .”); M

as ci ol a v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 469 F. 2d 1057, 1 0 5 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 2 ) (

percur i am ) ( hol di ng t hat “[a ] n err oneous pr edi ct i on of a s ent ence bydefe ndant ’ s couns el does notr ender a g u iltyp lea in v o lu n tar y ” w h e re re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t a pr operpl ea c ol l oquyt ook pl ace dur i ng w hi ch def endant acknow l edg ed t hathe w as aw ar e of hi s m axi m um pot ent i al s ent ence )

. A s s t at ed i n Mu sta fa , [w ] e r ecogni ze thatt he maxi m um s ent ence author i zed byl aw i s oft en s o extr aor di nar i l yl ong t hat few defe nd ants othert han “careercri m i nals ” pl e a d g u i l t ywi t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a tt he m a x im u m se n ten c e a p p lies to th e m . H o w e v e r, all that the l aw r equi r es i s t hatt he def endantbe i n f o r m e d o f h i s / h e r e x p o s u r e i n p l e a d i n g g u i l t y. T h e l a w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a d e f e n d a n tbe g iv e n a r e a so n a b lya c c u ra te “ b e st g u e ss ” a s to w h a t h is/h e r a c tu a l se n ten c e w ill b e ; n o r c o u ld it, g i v e n t h e v a g a r i e s a n d v a r i a b l e s o f ea ch defe ndant ’ s ci r cumst an ce s and off endi ng b e h a v io r.18 238 F. 3d at492 n. 5. T h is c a se f

a lls w e ll w ith in w e ll-e s ta b lish e d p re c e d e n t: d ef en se c o u n sel’s co n

jecture s to h is cl ient ab o u t sen tenc ing are irre lev a n t w h e re th e w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t an d in -c o u rt g u ilty pl ea c ol l oquyclea r l yes t abl i s h t he def endant ’ s m axi m um pot ent i al expos ur e and the s ent enci ng cou rt ’ s di s cr et i on. Shedr i ck’ s w r i t t en, s i gned agr eement s t at ed t hat ( 1) he face d a m axi m um pot ent i al s ent ence of t en y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on, ( 2) t he p a rties w e re f

re e to a rg u e a n yo th e r se n ten c in g iss u e s (e x p licitly in c lu d in g d e p a rtu re s), (3 ) th e D istric t C o u rt re tain e d u lti m a te di s cr et i on overt he s ent ence , and ( 4) t her e w er e no other agr eement s orpr om i s es r egar di n g Sh e d r i c k ’ s p o t e n t i al s ent ence . T h e D istric t C o u rt re p e a ted th e se f a c ts in o p e n c o u rt, s t ar t i ng t he gui l t ypl ea c ol l oquyb y co n fi r m i ng w i t h Shedr i ck th a t

m os ti m por t ant l y , al t hough t he pl ea a gr eement s t at es al l of the agr eement s and under s t andi ngs th a t ex ist [ am o n g ] th e d e f e n d a n t, de f

e n se c o u n se l, and t he G overnm ent , i tdoes notr ecomm end a s et ter m o f in c a rc e ra tio n a s b in d in g u p o n th is C o u rt. U l t i m at el y , t he appr opr i at e s ent ence w oul d be l eft t o t he exe r ci s e of the C our t ’ s di s cr et i on bas ed upon i nfor m at i on pr es ented bybot h s i des and bas ed upon a r evi ew o f t he Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s .W i t h r egar d t o hi s fai l ur e- t o- adv ise ar gum ent , Shedr i ck 7 r el i es heavi l yon one ca s e— Me y e rs v . G ill is , 142 F. 3d 664 ( 3d C i r . 1998)

— t o advanc e hi s cl ai m thatbad s ent enci ng i nfor m at i on prov ide d bya def ens e l aw y erequal s i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Meyers i nvol ved a ha bea s pr ocee di ng f ro m a sta te c o u rt g u iltyp lea . T h e d e f e n d a n t h a d p led g u iltyto s econd de gr ee m ur der , w hi ch carr i ed a mandat or yl i fe s ent ence 19 It th e n c o n f

irm e d th a t S h e d ric k (1 ) h a d re a d , s ig n e d , an d f u lly u n d erstoo d the p lea a g re e m en t, (2) u n d erstoo d that there w ere no ot her pr om i s es r egar di ng hi s pot ent i al s ent ence , and ( 3) had admi t t ed the fa ct s of the cr i m e. T he C our tfur t heradvi s ed S he dr i c k tha tt he maxi mum po t e nt i a l s e nt e nc e w a s t e n y e ars ’ i ncar cer a t i on and r epea t ed thati tr et ai ned ful l di s cr et i on overt he ul t i m at e s ent ence . H e re , an ye rro n e o u s s e n ten c in g in f o rm a ti o n a lleg e d ly pr ovi ded bydefe ns e couns el w as corr ect ed bythe w r i t t en pl ea agr eementand t he det ai l ed i n- cour tpl ea c ol l oquy , bot h of w hi ch a c c u ra telysta ted S h e d ric k ’s p o te n tial se n ten c e . G iv e n th is r ecor d, i ti s i nconce i vabl e tha t Shedr i ck di d notknow he p o ten tially f

a c e d a m a x im u m ten -y e a r pr iso n ter m . In f a c t, his a lleg a tio n s b e f

o r e o u r p a n e l ar e f

latlyin c o n sis ten t w ith h is w ri tt en , sign ed p lea a g re e m e n t, as w ell as h is sw o rn, i n -co u rt ans w er s duri n g h i s pl ea c ol l oquy . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e n ied S h e d ric k ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a s to h is c laim t hatcouns el w as i neff

ect i ve fo r f

ai l i ng t o advi s e hi m of the pot ent i al foran enha ncementorupw ar d departur e. 7w i t h no ch an ce of par ol e. N onethel es s , t he def endantw as m isin f o rm e d b y c o u n se l th a t h e w o u ld b e e lig ib le f o r p a ro le in se v e n y e a rs. A t h is g u iltyp lea , the d e f e n d a n t w a s re p e a ted ly i n f o r m e d t h a t h e w o u l d b e c o m e e l i g i b l e f o rp a r o l e . I n c r e d i b l y, th a t ad v ice w a s n e v e r c o r re c ted b yth e p ro se c u to r o r th e sta te t r i al cour t
. W e hel d t hat M ey er’ s couns el w as i neff ect i ve and re v e rs e d h is lif

e s e n te n c e . Meyers i s readil y dis t i ng uis hab l e from t he case b efore us. T he form er i nvol ved r evi ew of a s t at e cour t pr ocee di ng l acki ng a det ai l ed gui l t ypl ea a gr eementand t he equi val entof a Rul e 11 gui l t y pl ea col l oquy . M or e i m por t ant l y , t he tr i al cour ti n Meyers fai l ed t o corr ectt he err oneous s ent enci ng i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded on t he r ecor d bydefe ns e couns el

. I n s harp contr as t , t he D i s t r i ct C our ther e corr ect ed anyal l eged mi s per cept i on byShedr i ck a b o u t h is p o ten tial se n ten c e b y a c c u ra tely in f o rm in g h im th a t h is m axi m um pr i s on s ent ence w as t en y ear s and thatt he C our thad th e d is c re tio n to s e n te n c e h im u p t o th a t m a x im u m . See Scar br ough v. Johns on , 3 0 0 F

. 3 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 3

– 0 4 , 3 0 6 (3d C ir

. 2002) ( di s t i ngu ishi ng Meyers an d fin d ing n o erro r w h ere defe ns e couns el m i s i nfor m ed defenda nt t hathe w as el i gi bl e for par ol e but t he cour t r epea t edl yand corr ect l yi nfor m ed def endant t hathi s penal t yw as an “a ut om at i c l i fe s ent ence ” w i t h no chanc e o f p aro le). 20 B . I nef f ecti venes s of

Counsel f orFailure to A

ppeal T im e ly Sh edri ck’ s s econd c ont ent i on i s thathi s couns el w as inef fe ct i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l i n t hi s cas e. In reso lv ing this clai m , w e a re g u ided b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt ’s21 deci s i on i n R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U

. S. 470 ( 2000)

. T her e, t he C our t addr es s ed w hether couns el m aybe found de fi ci entfor fai l i ng t o fi l e a not i ce of appe al abs ents peci fi c i ns t ruct i on fr om t he def endantnott o do s o. B ecaus e the ques t i on conce r ned w hethe r co u n sel’s rep rese n tat ion w as c o n sti tuti o n all yd efect i ve, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e tw o -p a rt Str i ckland tes t g o v e rn e d its in q u ir y . Id

. at 476–77. A ppl y i ng t hat s t andar d t o t he part i cul ar f a c ts b e f o re it, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t “ c o u n se l h a s a c o n stitu tio n a lly i m pos ed dutyt o cons ul tw i t h t h e d ef endantaboutan appe al w hen ther e i s r eas on t o t hi nk ei t her( 1) t hata r at i onal defe ndant w o u ld w a n t t o ap p ea l ( fo r ex am p le, b ec au se th ere are nonfr i vol ous gr ounds fo r appe al ) , or( 2) t hatt hi s par t i cul ar defe ndantr eas onabl ydemonst r at ed t o couns el thathe w as interes t ed i n appea l i ng. ” Id

. a t4 8 0

. Th e Cou r tf u r t her e x p l a i n e d t h a ti t“ e m p l o y[ e d ] t h e t e r m ‘ c o n s u l t ’ t o c o n v e y a s peci fi c meani ng— advi s i ng t he def endantaboutt he adva nt ages a n d d isa d v a n tag e s o f tak in g a n a p p e a l, a n d m a k in g a re a so n a b le eff or tt o di s cover the d efe ndant ’ s w i s hes

. ” Id

. at478. A d d iti o n a lly , the C o u rt in stru c ted th a t co u rts u n d e rta k in g th is in q u iry , as w ith a ll i n e f f e c tiv e -a ss ista n c e c laim s, “ tak e in to acc ountal l t he i nfor m at i on counsel knew ors houl d have know n. ” Id

. at480 ( ci t i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 ). W i t h r e s p e c tt o S tr i ckland ’s pre jud ice p ron g , the C o u rt h e ld th a t th e h a rm les s-e rro r in q u iry a p p lied a n d th a t re lief c o u ld n o t b e g ran ted u n less the d ef en d an t “de m o n str ate[ s] th at th ere i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t yt h a t , b u tf o rc o u n s e l ’ s d e f

i ci ent fai l ur e t o cons ul tw i t h hi m about a n appea l , he w oul d have22 t i m el yappea l ed. ” Id

. at484. T he C our tdi d noti dent i fyany det erm i nat i ve fa ct or s i n t hi s r egar d, but di d s t r es s t hat“evi dence t hatt her e w er e non- fr i v o lous gr ounds forappea l ort hatt he d e fend ant at i ssue prom ptl y exp res sed a desi re t o appeal w ill oft en be hi ghl yr el evant
. ” I d. at485. A r evi ew of th e r ecor d her e r evea l s t hatShedr i ck “r eas onabl y demonst r at ed t o [hi s ] couns el t hathe w as i nt er es t ed i n appea l i ng” byvehement l ycontest i ng t he fa ctual i s s ues t hat led t o h is up w ard d ep arture th rou g h o u t th e D istri ct C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . See G ov’ t B r . at18 ( acknow l edgi ng t hatShedr i ck “h o tl yco n test ed ” the fa ctua l i ssu es lea d ing to h is up w ard d ep arture b o th p ri o r t o an d d u ri n g h is sen tenc ing p roc ee d ing s); s ee al s o A p p el l ant ’ s A pp. at78–79 ( demonst r at i ng t hat S h e d r i c k , d u r i n g h i s p l e a c o l l o q u y a n d p r i o rt o p l e a d i n g g u i l t y, s peci fi cal l yens ur ed t hat he w as not conce di ng anyi nvol vement i n t he van s hoot i ng i nci dent or any at t empt t o fi r e t he w eapon a t poli ce)

. I n t hi s cont ext , Shedr i ck’ s couns el had “a cons t i tut i onal l y - i m pos ed duty t o cons ul tw i t h” hi m conce r ni ng a p o s s ib le a p p e a l. F l or es - O r t ega , 5 2 8 U .S . at 4 8 0 ; s ee id

. at481 ( “W e expe ctt hatcour t s eval uat i ng t he r eas onabl en ess of c o u n se l’s p e rf

o rm a n c e u sin g th e in q u iry w e h a v e d e sc rib e d w ill f in d , in th e v a st m a

jo rityo f c a se s, th a t co u n se l h a d a d u ty to co n su ltw ith the d ef

en d an t abo u t an a p p ea l. ”).
T he G overnm entar gues t hatShe d r i ck “makes no a lle g a tio n th a t h e e v e r d ir e c te d c o u n s e l to [ f ile a n a p p e a l] .” G ov ’t B r. at 58

. Indeed , S hed ri ck’s habeas c o u n se l w ro te in h isC f

. P oi ndexter , 2007 W L 1845 1 1 9 , at * 8 ( r emandi ng for 8 e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t in stru c ted h is 23 b rie f to o u r C o u rt th a t “ [ t]h e re c o rd d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t [ trial] c o u n se l h a d a n yd isc u ss io n w ith [ S h e d ric k ] re g a rd in g a n a p p e a l. It is a lso u n c lea r w h e th e r [ S h e d ric k ] sp e c if ica llya sk e d [ h is co u n sel] t o fil e a n ap p ea l. ” A p p ell an t’ s B r. a t 1 7 . W e a re u n ce rt ain w h ysu ch co m m en ts w ere m ad e in ligh t of S h ed ri ck ’s ex p li citstat em en t i n a lett er t o the D istri ct Ju d g e, da ted F eb rua ry 26, 2003 ( before t he appe al deadl i ne had pa s s ed) , t hathe had as ked hi s couns el t o fi l e an appea l on hi s behal f. U pon r ece i pt of thi s l et t er , t he J udge’ s cham b er s s peci fi cal l yi nfor m ed counsel f

o r Shedr i ck of hi s des i r e t o appea l byl eavi ng a m es s age on couns el ’ s phone. N evert hel es s , Shedr i ck’ s couns el to o k n o a c tio n to e f

f e c t an a p p e a l. In su m , the re co rd c le arlyref lects S h ed ri ck ’s co u n sel’s d ef ici en t r ep rese n tat ion

. T h ere is no ind icati o n in the rec o rd t hathe cons ul t ed w i t h Shedr i ck pos t
- s ent enci ng as r equi r ed by R oe- O r t ega . I n fac t , Shedr i ck expr es s lyw r ot e t o t he D i s t r i ct J udge thathi s couns el fai l ed t o consul tw i t h hi m dur i ng t he a p p e a l p e rio d . M o re o v e r, e v e n if c o u n se l d id so , the re is litt le ques t i on he w as i neff

ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l , as Shedr i ck had s t at ed thathe w i s hed t o appeal w hi l e thatopt i on w as avai l abl e. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , i ti s notnece s s aryfor us t o r emand thi s cas e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfora fa ctual fi ndi ng t hatcouns el ei t herdi d ordi d notcons ul tw i t h Shedr i ck; couns el w a s d e f i c i e n te i t h e rw a y. 8a tto rn e yto f il e a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l); Tapp , 2007 W L 1839277 (sa m e ); C am

pus ano , 4 4 2 F .3 d a t 7 7 7 (sa m e ); G om ez - D i az , 433 F

. 3d at79 4 (sa m e ); Sandoval

- Lopez , 409 F. 3d at1198–99 (sa m e ); G a rr e tt , 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 7 (s a m e ). 24 C . R em edy B e c a u se S h e d ric k w a s p re v e n ted f ro m f ilin g a tim e ly appea l chal l engi ng hi s upw ar d departur e, w e must fi gur e out w hatt o do abouti t
. T h e an s w eri s notobvi ous , fort he l aw governi ng fede r al s ent enc i n g h a s c h anged s i gni fi cant l ys i nce the t i m e Shedr i ck w as s ent ence d i n 2003. W e w i l l notr ecountt he det ai l s of t hos e change s her e, as t heyhave be en ampl ydes cr i bed a n d e x te n s iv e ly e x a m in e d in o th e r d e c is io n s b yo u r C o u rt
. See, e . g. , U n it ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F

. 3 d 5 5 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d 2 3 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . D a v is , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( en banc )

. Suffi ce i tt o s a yt h a tt h e Gu i d e l i n e s , wh i c h we r e ma n d a t o r y a tt h e t i me o f S h e d ri c k ’s s e n te n c in g , a re n o w o n ly “e f f e c tiv e ly ad v is o ry.” B ooker , 543 U

. S. at 245. T hi s change i n t he l aw has r equi r ed us to d ea l w ith sev era l pro b lem s fo r ca ses in w h ich s en tenc es w ere i m pos ed bef

or e B ookerbutw er e on appe al w hen thatdeci s i on came dow n. G ener al l y , w e hav e adopt ed a br oad r emand pol i cyfor cas es on di r ectappe al from se nt ence s i m pos ed undert he m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s . S e e D a v is , 407 F. 3d at 164–66. B utt hatT hi s i s al l t he more t rue i n habeas p r o c e e d i n g s r ai s i ng 9 B ooker -re late d c laim s, a s w e h a v e h e ld th a t B ooker ’s e f f e c t is notr etr oact i ve on habeas rev ie w . See Ll oyd v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 6 0 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). 25 pol i cyi s notnece s s ar i l yappl i cabl e w hen i tco m es to c as es in v o lv in g a p p e llate w a iv e r s . M o st re lev a n t h e re , w e h e ld in U n itedS ta tes v . L o c ke tt , 4 0 6 F

. 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 3

– 1 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ), th a t B ookern e ith e r e n tit les a d e f e n d a n t to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea no rt o an unfe t t er ed r i ghtt o r e- s ent enci ng underan advi s o ry scheme i f he ha s w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appel l at e r evi ew a s p a rt o f h is p lea b a rg a in . “[ W ]h e re su b se q u e n t d e v e lo p m e n ts i n t he l aw expand a ri ght t hat a defenda nt has w ai ved i n a pl ea agr eement , t hatchange does notm ake the pl ea i nv o l unt aryor unknow i ng orot herw i s e undo i t s bi ndi ng natur e. ” I d. at213. 9
L o c ke tt ’s relev an ce to this ca se is s o m ew h at un clea r, th o u g h . T h e re , the d e f

e n d a n t h a d “ a sk [ e d ] u s to in v a lid a te h is se n ten c e b e c a u se h e d id n o t k n o w a t th e tim e h e p lea d e d g u ilty t hatt h e S u p reme C our tw oul d l at erhol d t hatt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e advi s or y . ” I d. H ere , in co n tr ast, the re co rd demonst r at es t hat Shedr i ck’ s conce r n at t he t i m e of hi s s ent ence w as t he pro p ri et yof hi s ei ght

- l evel upw ar d departur e, as e x p lain e d in th e p re v io u s se c tio n . T h a t a rg u m e n t is sp e c if ica lly p e rm iss ib le u n d e r th e ter m s o f S h e d ric k ’s p lea a g re e m e n t a n d is n o ta f f e c t e d b y L o c ke tt
. B ut d e s p i t e i t s p r e s e n c e i n a l l o f t h e i n e f

f e c t i ve-26 as s i s t ance - of- couns el di s cus s i on, Shedr i ck oddl ydoes notm ake an ar gum entw i t h r es pect t o w hetherhi s upw ar d departur e w as pr oper . I ns t ead, t he onl y ar gum ent r ai s ed i n hi s br i ef be for e us w i t h r egar d t o t he m er i t s of t he departur e i s t hat the D ist r i ct C our t( r athert han a j ur y ) found fa ct s us i ng a pr eponder ance - oft he- evi dence ( r ather t han bey ond- a- r eas onabl e- doubt ) s t andar d, th u s ca u sing h im to b e se n tenc ed h igh er tha n the s tatu tory m axi m um as cons t rued i n B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U

. S. 296, 303–04 ( 2004) ( “[T] he r el evant‘ s t atut or y m axi m um ’ i s nott he m axi m um s ent ence a j udge mayi m pos e af t erfi ndi ng addi t i onal f a c t s , b u tt h e ma x i mum h e ma yi mpo s e w ith outanyaddi t i onal fi nd i ng s. ”). T h is B la ke ly -b a se d c o n ten tio n is a S ix th A m en d m e n t arg u m en t th at w as w aive d as p art of S h ed ri ck ’s p lea a g ree m en t and , u n d er L o c ke tt , is a n o n start er. T h e ab o v e discu ssion asid e, w e c o n side r i t th e b ett er p art o f p rud en ce n o t to ad d ress the su b stan ce o f S h ed ri ck ’s u n d e rly in g se n ten c e . In ste a d w e w ill f o llo w th e u su a l co u rse in cas es of t hi s natur e: vaca t e and r emand for r e- entr y of t he i ni t i al s e n te n c e s o th a t th e re c a n b e a tim e ly ap p e a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. H adden , 475 F. 3d 652, 661 n. 8 ( 4t h C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. T

orres- O t ero , 2 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 4 , 3 0

– 3 1 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. P r ado , 2 0 4 F .3 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 5 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); In re G o d d ard , 1 7 0 F .3 d 4 3 5 , 4 3 6 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v. P eak , 99 2 F

. 2d 39 , 42 (4th C i r. 19 93 )); see al s o Spence v. U ni t ed Stat es , 6 8 F e d . A p p x . 6 6 9 , 6 7 6 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); G a rc ia v. U ni t ed Stat es , 278 F. 3d 134, 138 ( 2d C i r . 2003)

. T hi s w i l l put Shedr i ck i n t he s ame posi t i on he w ould h av e bee n i n i f he ha d27 h a d e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. M o re o v e r, itw ill g iv e h im th e o p p o rtu n ity p ro p e rly to ra ise th e iss u e th a t h e h a d p re v io u sly exp resse d a des i r e fort hi s C our tt o r evi ew and w hi ch he expl i ci tl y p res erved i n hi s pl ea a gr eementand col l oquy : t he pr opr i etyof hi s upw ar d departur e. I V . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons expl ai ned above , w e have j ur i s di ct i on overt his appea l i nvol vi ng i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- couns el cl ai m s . W e pr ocee d t o aff i rm t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of Shedr i ck’ s § 2255 pet i t i on conce r ni ng t he cl ai m t hathi s couns el w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o advi s e hi m as t o t he pot ent i al for an en h a n c e me n to ru p war d d e p a r tu r e . Howev e r , Sh e d r i c k has d em o n str ated that h is co u n sel w as inef fe cti v e u n d er R oe- O r t ega for fai l i ng t o ass i st him i n hi s ri gh tt o ap peal. W e t hu s r everse t h e Co u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f

S h e d r i c k ’ s § 2 2 5 5 p e t i t i o n on t hi s c l a i m. I n s o doi ng, w e vac at e Shedr i ck’ s s ent ence and r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o r e- ent er i t , t hus gi vi ng hi m t he oppor tuni t yt i m el yt o appea l on the narr ow gr ound al l ow ed by h is p lea a g re e m e n t.