T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, * res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rtg en era ll yd isfav o rs th e c it ati o n o f o rde rs and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee- j udge pane l has ** det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al as s i s t ance i n the d e ter m in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re f o re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### O c t ob e r 12, 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, v. BERN AR DO RO DR I GU EZ,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2379 ( D . C t . N os . C I V - 05- 255- J P/ R L P and

CR - 01 - 16 16 J P) (D . N . M e x . )

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndant - A ppel l antB ernar do R odr i guez, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce rt i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l fr om the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deni al of h is h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n b ro u g h t u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1) (a p e tit io n e r m a yn o t ap p e a l th e d e n ial o f h a b e a s re lief

u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 u n les s a C O A is i s s ued) . B ecaus e M r . R odr i guez ha s fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al- 2 -

o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (2 0 0 0 ), w e d e n ya C O A a n d d is m is s th e ap p e a l. I n 2002, M r . R odr i guez w as convi ct ed of di s tr i but i ng 50 orm or e gr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng coca i ne bas e and f orcons pi r acyt o comm i tthatoffe ns e; he w as se n ten c e d to 1 8 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. T h e a c tio n s th a t f o rm e d th e b a sis f

o r h is convi ct i on came aboutw hen D et ect i ve A rtG amboa of the A l buquer que Pol i ce D epartm entper form ed a c ontr ol l ed buyof cr ack- coca i ne fr om M r . R odr i guez and tw o coc o n sp ira to rs. O n O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 , D e tec tiv e G a m b o a c o n tac ted O sc a r C h a c o n to in q u ire w h e th e r h e c o u ldb u yc ra c k -c o c a in e f ro m h im . M r. C h a c o n to ldh im th a t h e c o u ld and t o m eethim as hi s hou se. W hen D et ect i ve G am bo a arr i ved atM r. C haco n’s house late r th a t d a y , M r. C h a c o n a sk e d to b o rro w D e tec tiv e G a m b o a ’s c e ll p h o n e ; af teru sin g it, M r. C h a c o n sa idth a t th e d ru g s w o u ldb e th e re sh o rtly . M r. R o d rig u e z a n d Je su s F a lls arr i ved appr oxi m at el ythi rtym i nut es l at er . T heythen made a dea l t o s el l D et ect i ve G amboa $4, 200 w orth of cr ack- coca i ne. D ur i ng the tr ans act i on, D et ect i ve G amboa w as equi pped w i th a r adi o tr ans m i tt ers o thatthe conve r s at i on betw een hi m , M r . R odr i guez, a n d h is c o -c o n sp ira to rs c o u ldb e re c o rd e d . T h e re c o rd in g w a s n o t in tro d u c e d a t trial, h o w ev er, as itw as larg elyu n intell igible o r i n au d ible. A p an el of this C o u rtaf

firm ed M r. R o d ri g u e z ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See U ni ted States v. R odr iguez , 90 F e d . A p p ’x 3 5 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). M r . R odr i guez then fi l ed hi s § 2255 pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctC ourt , ar gui ng thathe r ece i ved i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el becaus e hi s couns el fai l ed t o i ntr oduce- 3 -

i m peac hi ng and exc ul pat oryevi dence attr i al . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on and d e n ied a C O A . In M r. R o d rig u e z ’ a p p lica tio n f o r C O A b e f

o re th is c o u rt, h e re a ss e rts h is i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s and he a l s o cont ends thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es the Si xth A m endmentas s t at ed i n U ni ted States v. B ooker , 54 3 U . S . 22 0 (200 5). W e add res s e a c h is s u e in tu rn . I n or dert o pr evai l on an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , M r . R odr i guez m us ts how thathi s couns el ’ s conduct“fe l l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s ” and thats uch def i ci entper form ance r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce t o the defe ns e— thati s , “ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i ckland v. W as hi ngton , 466 U . S. 668, 688, 694 ( 1984) . M r . R odr i guez f i r s tcont ends thathi s couns el w as in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to in tro d u c e in to e v id e n c e th e tap e -re c o rd e d c o n v e rsa tio n b e c a u se it w o u ld h a v e p ro v e n D e te c tiv e G a m b o a ’s te s tim o n ya t tr ia l to b e f a ls e . M r . R odr i guez ha s fai l ed t o s how thathi s couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o i ntr oduce e i therthe r ecor di ng ora tr ans cr i ptof the r ecor di ng fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of reas on ableness orthat anydefici ent per form ance p rej ud i ced h i m . H e do es not contes t thatthe r ecor di ng w as l ar gel yuni nt el l i gi bl e. N ordoes he i dent i fyw hi ch of the i n t e l l i g i b l e p o rt i o n s o f

th e r e c o r d i n g wo u l d h a v e f a v o r e d h i s d e f

e n s e . He me r e l yc l a i ms that the p o rt ion s o f itthat w ere intell igible “c o u ld h av e m ad e a su b stan ti al diff ere n [c e]” forhi m . T hi s conclus oryal l egat i on does nots at i s fyhi s bur den t o m ake as ubs t ant i al s h o w in g o f

th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. See H al lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110- 4 -

( 10th C i r . 1991) ( rul i ng thateven pr o s e pl ai nt i ffs m us tal l ege s uffi ci entfac t s on w hi ch a re c o g n iz e d le g a l c la im c a n b e b a s e d ; c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s w ill n o t s u f f ic e ). S e c o n d , M r. R o d rig u e z a rg u e s 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 in tro d u c e M r. G a m b o a ’s p h o n e re c o rd s in to e v id e n c e to sh o w th a t n o c a ll w a s p lac e d to M r. R o d ri g u ez o r M r. F all s d u ri n g the c o n tr o ll ed b u y . A g ain w e c o n clud e tha t M r. R odr i guez ha s fai l ed t o s how defi ci entper form ance thatpr ej udi ced hi m . T he G o v ern m en t nev er a ll eg ed at tri al th at M r. C h ac o n ca ll ed eith er M r. R o d ri g u ez o r M r. Fal l s . R ather , the G overnm entar gued thatM r . C hacon c al l ed s om eone t o chec k on the s ta tu s o f th e d ru g d e a l a n d th a t p e rs o n a s s u re d h im th a t th e d ru g s w o u ld b e th e re s h o rt ly. In d e e d , the d ru g s w e re th e re sh o rtlya s M r. R o d rig u e z a n d M r. F a lls a rriv e d w ith in th irty m inu tes. T h at th e p h o n e re co rds m ayh av e re v ea led th at th e c all w as n o t place d to M r. R odr i guez orM r . Fal l s , butt o a fourth partyi nvol ved i n the tr ans act i on, does notcr eat e a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o i ntr oduce the r ecor ds , the r es ul tof th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. T h ird , M r. R o d rig u e z a rg u e s 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 i ntr oduce e vi dence fr om a fi ngerpr i ntexpertthathi s pr i nt s w er e nei therfound on the p las tic b a g c o n tain in g th e c ra c k -c o c a in e o r o n a g u n lo c a ted a t th e sc e n e . A g a in , the re is no bas i s forr el i ef. Pr i ort o tr i al , the G overnm entand M r . R odr i guez s t i pul at ed t o the fa ct thathi s pr i nt s w er e notfound on the pl as t i c bag. Furtherm or e, M r . R odr i guez w as ac q u itted o f a firearm ch arg e. A s su ch , h e c o u ld n o t hav e b ee n p rejud iced b yco u n sel’s fai l ure t o call the w i tness.- 5 -

F inally , M r. R o d ri g u ez arg u es th at un d er B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, hi s s ent ence vi ol at es the Si xth A m endmentbecaus e i tw as bas ed on fa ct s notfound bythe j urybey ond a re a s o n ab le d o u b t. B ooker , how ever , does notappl yr etr oact i vel yt o cas es on col l at er al r e v i e w. Un i te d

S ta te s v . B e l la my , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 8 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e D E N Y M r . R odr i guez’ s r eques tfora C O A , G R A N T l eave t o pr ocee d i n f o rma p a u p e ris , a n d D IS M IS S th e ap p e a l. ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C i r cui tJ udge