1

H L D - 198 ( Sept em ber 2010) NOT P 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. 10- 1748

____________ RO BE RT EA RL ED W A RD S, A p p e llan t, v . W AR DEN T. R. SNI EZEK

__________________________________ O n 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 02251) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

____________________________________ S u b m itte df

o r P o s s ib le D is m is s a l P u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . ' 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember30, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef Judge, SC I R I C A and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed N o v em b er 5 , 2 0 1 0 )

____________ OP INI ON

____________ P E R C U R I A M.

A p p ell an t R o b ert E arl E d w ard s, a f ed era l pri so n er, w as tri ed b ef o re a jury i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof Texas and found gui l tyof one c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yw ith in ten t to d istrib u te in e x c e ss o f 1 ,0 0 0 k ilo g ra m s o f

m a riju a n a in2

v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . '' 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 (a ), an d8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ); tw o c o u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te in e x c e s s o f 1 0 0 k ilo g ra m s o f

m a ri ju a n a in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . '' 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) , and one c ountof cons pi r acyt o conductfi nanci al tr ans act i ons i nvol vi ng danger ous drugs w i th the i nt entt o pr om ot e, conce al , and di s gui s e the pr ocee ds in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . '' 1956( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( I ) , 1956( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( I ) , and 1956( h) . O n M ar ch 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , E d wa r d s wa s s e n t e n c e dt o a t o t a l t e rm o f i mp r i s o n me n to f

1 9 2 mo n th s . On appea l , E dw ar ds ar gued thatthe s ent enci ng courti m pr oper l yappl i ed a tw o- l evel adj us tm entfora l eade r s hi p r ol e i n the cr i m i nal act i vi ty , and a tw o- l eveladj us tm entfor obs truct i on of j us t i ce. T he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence w as aff i rm ed bythe Fi fth C i r cui tC ourtof A ppeal s . See U ni t ed St at es v. G i ddi ngs , 107 Fed. A ppx. 420, 424- 2 5 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (co u rt = s tw o- l evelenhanc ementforE dw ar ds = l eade r s hi p r ol e not err oneous w her e evi dence s how ed thathe A m anage d @ m anyof the dr i ver s w ho tr ans port ed m arij u an a). E d w a rd s p e tit io n e dth e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt f o r a w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri, w hi ch w as gr ant ed. O n February28, 2005, the Supr eme C ourtvaca t ed and r emanded the cas e forfurthercons i der at i on i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) ( Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e advi s oryonl y ) . See Edw ar ds v. U ni t ed St at es , 543 U . S. 1181 ( 2005) . O n r emand, the Fi fth C i r cui tr ei ns t at ed i t s j udgm entaff i rm i ng the convi ct i on and s ent ence . R evi ew i ng forpl ai n err orbecaus e Edw ar ds di d notr ai s e an obj ect i on t o the cons t i tut i onal i tyof hi s s ent ence befor e the s ent enci ng court , the Fi fth C i r cui thel d that3

E d w a rd s f

a iled to sh o w th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt w o u ldh a v e re a c h e da d if f e re n t re su lt u n d e r a n a d v is o ry ra th e r th a n a m a n d a to ry sc h e m e . A I ndeed, w hi l e the G ui del i nes perm i tt ed a s ent ence as l ow as 188 m onths , the courts ent ence d E dw ar ds t o 192 m onths c o n f in e m e n t. @ U n it ed S tat es v . E d w ard s, 1 3 2 F ed . A p p x . 5 3 5 , 5 3 6 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

O n J une 26, 2006, E dw ar ds fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence under28 U .S .C . ' 2 2 5 5 . T h e se n ten c in g c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n a n dd e c lin e dto iss u e a c e rtific a te o f ap p e a lab ili ty . A lth o u g h th e F if th C irc u it g ra n ted E d w a rd s a c e rtific a te o f ap p e a lab ili ty o n the issu e w h ethe r th e tri al co u rtim p rop erlyco m m en ted o n the e v iden ce d u ri n g jury i ns truct i ons , and w hetherE dw ar ds = trial c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ili n g to o b

jec t to thos e comm ent s , ul t i m at el ythe courtaff i rm ed the or derdeny i ng E dw ar ds = s ect i on 2255 m ot i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. E dw ar ds , 280 Fed. A ppx. 409, 421 ( 5th C i r . 2008) ( tr i al co u rt = s in s tru c tio n s to ju ry d id n o t a m o u n t to im p ro p e r c o m m e n t o n d is p u te df a c ts ). E dw ar ds fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce rt i or ar i i n the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourt , w hi ch w as deni ed on A pr i l 28, 2009.

O n N ov em ber 16, 2009 , E dw ards fi l ed a p et i t i on for w ri tof h abeas co rpus, 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2241, i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, the di s tr i ctw her e he pr es ent l yi s confi ned. E dw ar ds cl ai m ed thatthe enhancementhe r ece i ved forhi s l eade r s hi p r ol e vi ol at es hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s becaus e he w as never i ndi ct ed fora l eade r s hi p r ol e i n the cr i m i nal act i vi ty , and the j urydi d notfi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthathe had al eade r s hi p r ol e i n i t . E dw ar ds s oughtt o have hi s s ent ence4

r educe d by5 y ear s and 11 months . I n an or derent er ed on M ar ch 3, 2010, the D i s tr i ct C o u rtd is m is s e dth e h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n f o r l a c ko f

ju ri s d ic tio n . E d w a rd s a p p e a ls. O u r C lerkg ra n ted h im lea v e to ap p e a l in f o rm a p a u p e ris a n da d v is e dh im th a t th e ap p e a l w a s s u b je c t to s u m m a ry d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . ' 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o rs u mm a rya f f i rman c e u n d e rT h i r dCi r . L AR 2 7 . 4 a n dI . O. P . 1 0 . 6 . He w as i nvi t ed t o s ubm i tar gum enti n w r i t i ng, buthe has notdone s o.

W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . ' 1 2 9 1 . Un d e rT h i r dCi r c u i tL AR 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, w e mays um m ar i l ydi s pos e of an appea l w hen i tcl ear l yappear s that no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed bythe appe al . O urr evi ew i s pl enary . U ni t ed St at es v . T h o m p s o n , 7 0 F .3 d2 7 9 , 2 8 0 -8 1 (3 dC ir . 1 9 9 5 ).

W e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i rm the or derof the D i s tr i ctC ourtbecaus e no s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n is p re s e n te db yth is ap p e a l. A s e x p la in e db yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt , a m o tio n to v a c a te s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2 2 5 5 is th e e x c lu siv e m e a n s to chal l enge c ol l at er al l ya fe der al convi ct i on ors ent ence . See D avi s v. U ni t ed St at es , 417 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (1 9 7 4 ). U n d e r th e e x p lic it te rm s o f 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2255, unl es s a s ect i on 2255 m ot i on w oul d be A i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve, @ even ahabea s corpus pet i t i on cannot b e e n tert aine db ya c o u rt . S ee A p p li ca ti o n o f G alan te, 4 7 3 F . 2 d1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 1 ). S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 is n o t in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e sim p lyb e c a u se E d w a rd s is p re v e n te db yth e g a te k e e p in g re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e s ta tu te , s e e 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2255( h) , fr om l i t i gat i ng hi s A ppr endi cl ai m , s ee A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466, 490 ( 2000)S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 p ro v id e s th a t: 1 ( h) A s econd ors ucce s s i ve mot i on m us tbe ce rt i fi ed as pr ovi ded i n s ect i on 2244 by a pane l of the appr opr i at e courtof appe al s t o cont ai n B ( 1) new l ydi s cover ed evi dence that , i f pr oven and vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the evi dence as a w hol e, w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence that n o rea so n ab le fa ctfind er w o u ld h av e f o u n dthe m o v an t gu il tyo f th e o ff en se; o r ( 2) a new rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew bythe Supr eme C ourt , thatw as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e. 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2 2 5 5 (h). 5 (h o ld in g th a t A [o] therthan the fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on, anyfac tthati ncr eas es the penal tyfora cr i m e bey ond the pr es cr i bed s t atut orym axi m um m us tbe s ubm i tt ed t o a j ury , and pr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt @ ) , i n a s econd ors ucce s s i ve s ect i on 2255 m ot i on. A It is th e e f f ica c yo f th e re m e d y , n o t th e p e rso n a l in ab ili tyto u se it, th a t is 1 det erm i nat i ve. @ C rad le v. U n it ed S tat es e x rel. M iner, 29 0 F . 3 d5 3 6 , 5 3 8 -39 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ) ( c itin g G a rr is v . L in d s a y , 7 9 4 F .2 d7 2 2 , 7 2 7 (D .C . C ir .1 9 8 6 ). M o re o v e r, th e s a f

e ty v a lv e p ro v id e du n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2255 i s narr ow , s ee I n r e: D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . I n D or s ai nvi l , w e hel d thata pet i t i oner c o u ld s e e kre lie f

u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . ' 2 2 4 1 , b u t th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s h e re a re d if f e re n t. A ppr endi di d notdecl ar e ce rt ai n conductnotcr i m i nal thatpr evi ous l yw as r egar ded as cr i m i nal , and thus D or s ai nvi l does notappl y . O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 1 2 0 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (A p p re n d i d e a lt w ith se n ten c in g a n dd idn o t re n d e r c o n sp ira c yto i m porther oi n, the cr i m e forw hi ch [pe t i t i oner ] w as convi ct ed, notcr i m i nal ) . A s s uch, theD i s tr i ctC ourtw as w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n E dw ar ds = fede r al habea s corpus

pet i t i on. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i rm the or derof the D i s tr i ctC ourtdi s m i s s i ng E dw ar ds = habea s corpus pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.