T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi th F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e H o n o rab le C . A rl en B ea m , U n it ed S tat es C ir cu itJu d g e, E igh th C ir cu itC o u rt ** of A ppeal s , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. T he H onor abl e W al kerD . M i l l er , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof 1 C ol or ado. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 13, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 1297 v. D . C ol or ado R O D G E R IC K L A B O N L A C K E Y , a/k /a R o d e r i c k L a c k e y,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 1 3 1 9 - W D M) ( D . C . N o . 0 1 - C R - 2 1 0 - W D M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , BE AM , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. **

R odger i ck Lackeyappea l s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e, 1 s etas i de, orcorr ects ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 , a n d a f f i rm.A p p ren d i v. N ew Jerse y , 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 (20 0 0 ). 2 U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). 3 -2-

I . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND L acke yw as convi ct ed of be i ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) . H i s s ent ence w as enhanc ed pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 2) forhavi ng tw o pr i orfel onyoffe ns es –a cr i m e of vi ol ence ( as s aul t ) and a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e ( s el l i ng cr ack c ocai ne) , both fr om N orth C ar ol i na s t at e court . D ue t o the enha ncement , L acke y ’ s gui del i nes r ange w as 110- 1 3 7 m o n th s, b u t th e sta tu to rym a x im u m w a s 1 2 0 m o n th s. H e w a s u lti m a telyse n ten c e d to 110 m onths i n pr i s on, and hi s convi ct i on w as aff i rm ed on di r ectappea l i n U ni t ed St at es v. L ac k ey , 3 3 4 F . 3 d 1 2 2 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In h is s e c tio n 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , L a c k e ya rg u e d th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s im p ro p e rly enhanc ed underA ppr endi and/ orB ooker and thathi s tr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve for 2 3 fai l i ng t o ant i ci pat e and make the B ookerar gum ent . B efor e the di s tr i ctcourtrul ed, L ackeyreal i zed thaton e of h i s pri or N orth C arol i na co nv i ct i on s m i gh tno tqu al i fyas a pr i orfel ony–w hi ch w oul d have i nval i dat ed the s ect i on 2K 2. 1 enhanc ement . L acke y ther efor e as ked the di s tr i ctcourtforl eave t o amend hi s 2255 pl eadi ng, s eeki ng t o add the cl ai m thattr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r eal i ze thatthe under l y i ng convi ct i on did not quali fyas a fel on yun der the g uidel i nes.B lake lyv . W ash ing ton , 5 4 2 U . S . 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ). 4 -3- T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the 2255 mot i on, fi ndi ng thatbecaus e Lackeyw as s e n t e n c e d b e l o w th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m, h e wa s n o te n t i t l e d t o Ap p r e n d i r e l i e f a tth e t i me of s ent enci ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtfurtherhel d thatcouns el w as noti neff ect i ve forfai l i ng to a n ticip a te B lak e ly o r B o o k e r ru lin g s. T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied L a c k e y ’s m o tio n to 4 a m e n d a s “ m o o t,” a n d a c c o rd in g lyd idn o t ad d re ss th e in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim re g a rd in g w h e th e r h is p rio r o f f e n se q u a lifie d a s a f

e lo n y . T h e d istric t co u rt d e c lin e d to i s s u e a c e rt i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty. A p a n e l o f

th is c irc u it i ss u e d a c e rtific a te o n th e iss u e ra ise d in L a c k e y ’s m o tio n to amend: w hetherL acke y ’ s couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o ant i ci pat e, and ar gue, that a pr i ors t at e courtdrug convi ct i on coul d notbe us ed t o enhanc e the under l y i ng fede r al s ent ence , becaus e i tw as nota fe l onyunders ect i on 2K 2. 1. T he courts peci fi cal l ydi r ect ed co u n sel t o it s d ec isi o n in U n it ed S tat es v . P lakio , 4 3 3 F . 3 d 6 9 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I I . DI S CU S S I ON T o estab li sh inef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel, L ac k eym u st sho w that h is co u n sel’s per form ance “fe l l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , ” and thatthe def i ci ent per form ance r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce. Str i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 688, 691- 92 (1 9 8 4 ). L acke y ’ s tr i al couns el di d notcont es tthatL acke y ’ s pr i orN orth C ar ol i na drug off ense w as a pri or fel on y . T he g uidel i nes def i ne a p ri or fel on y , for sent encing p urposes, as an off ens e “puni s habl e” bya t erm of i m pr i s onm entexce edi ng one y ear , r egar dl es s ofT a k in g in to a c c o u n t L a c k e y ’s c rim in a l h isto rylev e l, his m a x im u m p o ss ib le 5 se n ten c e f

o r th e N o rth C a ro lin a o f f e n se w a s te n m o n th s. O th e r “ h yp o th e tica l” d e f e n d a n ts convi ct ed of the s ame offens e w i th m or e cr i m i nal hi s t orycoul d have r ece i ved a s ent ence o f u p to th irty m o n th s . -4- w hetherthe s t at e ca l l s the off ens e a f el ony , and r egar dl es s of the ac tual t erm of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed. U . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1 cmt . n. 1. L ackeyargues that hi s pri or offen se w as not a fel on yfor gu i deli nes pu rposes, becaus e he w as convi ct ed of acr i m e forw hi ch he w as notpuni s habl e bym or e than 5 tw el ve-m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent. T hu s, L ackeycon t end s coun sel w as i neff ect i ve fo r s o s t i pul at i ng. E ven though every one agr ees thatthe maxi m um s ent ence Lackeycoul d have rec eive d w as less th an o n e y ea r, p ri o r t o 2 0 0 5 o u r pre ce d en t i n d icated that L ac k ey ’s part i cularm axim um sent ence w as not r el evan ti n d et erm i ning w hetherthe o ffen se cons t i tut ed a pr i orfel onyforpurpos es of s ect i on 2K 2. 1. I n U ni t ed St at es v. A rnol d, 113 F . 3d 11 46 (10th C i r. 19 97 ), w e con si dered the q uest i on of w hen a pri or offen se w as a fel onyforpurpos es of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) . I n A rnol d, as a r es ul tof havi ng a mi ni m al n u m b e r o f

c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts, th e d e f e n d a n t w a s g iv e n a n e lev e n -m o n th se n ten c e in K ans as s t at e courtfora convi ct i on i nvol vi ng unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm . U nder K ans as l aw , the maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence forthi s offe ns e w as tw enty - thr ee months –for a hypothet i cal offe nderw i th a more ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory . A ddi t i onal l y , underthe K ans as s ent enci ng s cheme us ed atthatt i m e, the tr i al courtcoul d enhanc e a s ent ence , s o le ly atits d is c re tio n , b a s e d o n a n e x p re s s ly n o n -e x c lu s iv e lis t o f a g g ra v a tin g f

a c to rs .-5-

I d . a t1 1 4 8 n . 1 . W e h e l d th a tb e c a u s e s e c t i o n 9 2 2 p e n a l i z e d a n y o n e c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i me p u n ish a b le b ym o re th a n o n e y e a r, A rn o ld ’s p ri o r c o n v ic tio n q u a lif ie d a s a p ri o r f

e lo n y . I d. at1148. W e not ed that , “[w ] hatm att er s i s notthe ac tual s ent ence w hi ch the appe l l ant r ece i ved, butthe maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence . ” I d. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. N orr i s , 319 F . 3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 1 -82 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (ho lding that the m ere p o ssibil ityo f a n u p w ard departur e bey ond one y earqual i fi es a K ans as offe ns e as one puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm ent fo r a term ex ce ed ing o n e y ea r). T h e sta te o f

th e law o n th is iss u e c h a n g e d so m e w h a t af tero u r 2 0 0 5 d e c isio n in P lak io , h o w e v e r. 4 3 3 F .3 d 6 9 2 . In P lak io , the d e f e n d a n t ar g u e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l th a t h is pr i oroffe ns e w as nota fe l onyfors ect i on 2K 2. 1 purpos es . Pl aki o’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons o c c u rre d in K a n sa s s tate c o u rt, an d a c c o rd in g to h is o f f e n se a n dc rim in a l h isto ry , h is “pr es um pt i ve” maxi m um s ent ence w as 9- 11 m onths . B ut , becaus e a K ans as tr i al j udge co u ld en h an ce a se n tenc e b ey o n d the p resu m p ti v e se n tenc e, ba sed up o n it s d iscreti o n ary fin d ing o f c ertain a g g rav ati n g fa ctors, A rno ld, 11 3 F . 3 d at 11 4 8 , the s en tenc ing co u rt fo u n d that P lakio ’s prior se n tenc e w as o n e tha t w as p u n isha b le bym o re tha n o n e y ea r. W e re v erse d . P lakio , 4 3 3 F . 3 d at 69 5 . P lakio w as se n tenc ed in K an sas s tat e c o u rt i n 2001 dur i ng a part i cul ar l yuncert ai n t i m e i n K ans as s ent enci ng l aw . A ft erA ppr endi w a s d e c id e d in Ju n e 2 0 0 0 , the K a n sa s S u p re m e C o u rt lim ited th e d isc re tio n a ryf lex ib ili ty of K ans as tr i al j udges t o enhanc e s ent ence s . See St at e v. G oul d, 23 P. 3d 801, 814 ( K an. 2001) ( i nval i dat i ng al l upw ar d departur es i n cas es thatw er e pendi ng on di r ectappea l orT h e K a n s a s le g is la tu re c h a n g e d th e s e n te n c in g s c h e m e , e f f e c tiv e J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 2 . 6 Pl aki o, 433 F. 3d at695. -6- w er e noty etfi nal as of J une 26, 2000) . T hus , betw een June 2000 and June 2002, a 6 K a n s a s d e f

e n d a n t’ s p re s u m p tiv e s e n te n c e w a s a ls o h is m a x im u m p o s s ib le s e n te n c e . B ecaus e Pl aki o w as s ent ence d i n 2001, hi s m axi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence w as l es s than one y ear . Pl aki o, 433 F. 3d at695. I n es s ence , ourPl aki o deci s i on hel d thati n K ans as , dur i ng the per i od of J une 2000 thr ough J une 2002, the “hypothet i cal ” def endantno l onger exi s t ed. T he onl yr el evantques t i on w as the maxi m um s ent ence thatthe ac tual defe ndant befor e the courtcoul d have r ece i ved forhi s pr i oroffe ns e. L acke yar gues thatbas ed on the A ppr endi - founded r eas oni ng of Pl aki o, hi s tr i al couns el s houl d have know n thathi s ear l i erN orth C ar ol i na drug offe ns e di d notqual i fyas a p rio r f e lo n yf o r f e d e ra l se n ten c in g p u rp o se s. A lth o u g h L a c k e yd o e s n o t cle a rlye x p lain hi s ar gum enti n thi s r egar d, he appa r ent l ycont ends thatthe K ans as s ent enci ng s cheme as arti cu lat ed in G o u ld an d ap p li ed in P lakio , w as b ind ing in N o rth C aro li n a, an d there fo re hi s s ent ence , w hi ch w as i m pos ed dur i ng the 2000- 2002 t i m e fr ame, s houl d r ece i ve P la k io -t yp e tr e a tm e n t. T hi s ar gum ent , i f w e corr ect l yunder s t and i t , i s w i thoutm er i t . W hetherornot P lak io ’s r e a so n in g a p p lied a t th e N o rth C a ro lin a p ro c e e d in g w e c o n sid e r in th is a p p e a l, L ac k ey ’s co u n sel d id n o t hav e the b en ef ito f th e P lakio d ec isi o n at th e ti m e o f L ac k ey ’s se n ten c in g . W e sim p lyc a n n o t f in d th a t co 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 n ticip a te and make the Pl aki o ar gum entbecaus e Pl aki o w as deci ded i n 2005, l ong aft erL acke y-7-

w as se n tenc ed in 2 0 0 2 , an d h is co n v ict ion w as a ff irm ed o n ap p ea l i n 2 0 0 3 . L ac k ey ’s a rg u m e n t th a t P lak io re p re se n ted o n lya n e x ten sio n o f th e law a s a n n o u n c e d in A rn o ld and N orr i s i s unavai l i ng. T he di s s enti n Pl aki o ar gued thatthe courts houl d l ook onl yat the maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence al l ow ed foranydefe ndantconvi ct ed of the part i cul ar c ri m e –n o t s im p ly th e d e f e n d a n t b e f

o re th e c o u rt . 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 6 9 8 (O ’B ri e n , J ., di s s ent i ng) . J udge O ’ B r i en not ed thatthi s appr oach, notthe court ’ s appr oach, w oul d be “a l ogi cal ext ens i on” of the pr ece dent s i n N orr i s and A rnol d. I d. T hough L acke yar gues thatPl aki o di d notchange ourci r cui t ’ s l aw on the cont es t ed poi nt , J udge O ’ B r i en w as c e rta in lyc o n v in c e d o th e rw ise . In lig h t o f th is, w e c a n n o t f

a u lt tria l co u n se l f

o r f a ili n g to p re d ict th e c o u rse th a t P lak io w o u ldc h a rt. B u llo c k v . C a rv e r, 2 9 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 5 2 (1 0 th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng that“cl ai rvoy ance i s nota r equi r ed attr i but e of e ffe ct i ve rep rese n tat ion ”) (q u o tat ion o m itted). I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e grantL ackey ’s m oti on t o am end his sect i on 22 55 m oti on . H ow ever, becau se L acke ycannotes t abl i s h i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , w e denyr el i ef on thatm ot i on. T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C . A r l en B eam C i r cui tJ udge