FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT OCTOB ER 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15656 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo s . 0 5 - 2 0 9 3 4 - CV- DLG & 0 2 - 2 0 7 9 4 - CR - DLG T E R R Y T U C K E R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 1, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Inh is p e ti ti o n , Tu c k e r a ll e g e d th at h is la

wye r w a s in e f f e c tiv ein o th e r w ays , a s w e ll . We 1 need not discuss those alleg ations in the context of this appeal, which focuses solely on the timeliness of Tucker ’s habe as petition. 2 A f te rp le a d in g g u ilty to d is tr ib u tin g c o c a in e , T e r r y T u c k e rw a s s e n te n c e d to f e d e r a l p r i s o n o n Ap r i l 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 . He d i d n o ta p p e a l th e s e n t e n c e . Ne a r l y two y e a r s l a t e r , on A pr i l 5, 2005, T uc ke rf i l e d a pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255, c ont e ndi ng tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l ha d be e n i ne f f e c t i ve by fa i l i ng t o fi l e at i m el y app ea l . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the pet i t i on as 1 unt i m e l y . T uc ke ra ppe a l s f r om tha tj udgm e nt , c ha l l e ngi ng the c our t ’ s de c i s i on r e g a r d in g tim e lin e s s a n d r a is in g s e v e r a l p e r ip h e r a l is s u e s a s w e ll. A l though the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a c e r t i f i c a t e of a ppe a l a bi l i ty on f

our q u e s tio n s , o n ly o n e d e m a n d s r e s o lu tio n : D id th e tr ia l c o u r t c le a r ly e r rw h e n it a dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s f i ndi ng tha tT uc ke r ’ s pe t i t i on w a s unt i m e l y ? T he a n s w e ris n o ; th e r e f

o r e , w e a f

f ir m . U nde r28 U . S . C . § 2255, a s a m e nde d by the A nt i t e r r or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (A E D P A ), a pri soner m ov i ng t o v ac at e hi s s ent ence m ustdo so w i thi n o ne ye arfr om the l at es tof: ( 1 ) th e d a te o n w h ic h th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n b e c o m e s f

in a l; ( 2) the da t e on w hi c h the i m pe di m e ntt o m a ki ng a m ot i on c r e a t e d by gove r nm e nt a l a c t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s i s r e m ove d, i f the m ova ntw a s pr e ve nt e d f r om m a ki ng a m ot i on by s uc h gove r nm e nt a l a c t i on;3

( 3) the da t e on w hi c h the r i ghta s s e r t e d w a s i ni t i a l l y r e c ogni z e d by the S upr e m e C our t , i f

tha tr i ghtha s be e n ne w l y r e c ogni z e d by the S upr e m e C our ta nd m a de r e tr oa c t i ve l y a ppl i c a bl e t o c a s e s on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w ; or ( 4 ) th e d a t e o n w h i c h th e f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g th e c l a i m o rc l a i ms pr e s e nt e d c oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d thr ough the e xe r c i s e of due di l i gence. T u c k e rc o n te n d s th a t h is p e titio n w a s tim e ly u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 ( 4 ) b e c a u s e h e f ile d it w ith in o n e y e a ro f

d is c o v e r in g th a t h is la w y e rh a d n o t f ile d a d ir e c t a p p e a l o f

h is s e n te n c e . In det erm i ni ng w hether a m ot i on i s t i m el y und er§ 2 25 5(4), a di stri ctcourt m us tf i r s tc ons i de rw he the rthe pe t i t i one re xe r c i s e d due di l i ge nc e i n di s c ove r i ng th e f a c ts u n d e r ly in g h is c la im . A ron v. U ni t ed St at es , 29 1 F . 3d 70 8, 71 1 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . D u e d ilig e n c e d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a litig a n t to u n d e r ta k e r e p e a te d e x e r c is e s in f u tility o rto e x h a u s t e v e r y im a g in a b le o p tio n , b u t r a th e rto m a k e r e a s o n a b le e f f o r ts to d is c o v e rth e f

a c ts u n d e r ly in g e a c h c la im . I d. a t 7 1 2 . I f

th e c o u r t f

in d s th a t a pe t i t i one rw a s notdi l i ge nti n hi s e f f or t s , i tm us tpr oc e e d t o c ons i de rw he n the pe t i t i one rc oul d ha ve di s c ove r e d the f a c t s e s s e nt i a l t o hi s c l a i m ha d he be e n a c t i ng d ilig e n tly . I

d . at 711, n. 1. S o l ong a s the pe t i t i on i s f i l e d w i thi n one y e a rof

the da t e on w hi c h the f

a c t s c oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d w i th r e a s ona bl e di l i ge nc e , the p e titio n w ill b e tim e ly .On appe al, Tucker argues that the mag istrate judg e violated the Mag istrates Ac t, 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) a

nd Rule 8(b) of theRules GoverningSection 2255 Procee dings by issuing his third revis e d repo rt

and re c omm e nd atio n w ith out f ir st b e inga sk e d b y

thedis tric t ju dg eto amend or supplement his report. Nothingin § 636(b)(1) prohibits magistrates from c orre cting perc eived error s in their repor ts and rec ommendations when mistakes c ome to light, and g ood sense sug g ests that such a practiceis both prudent and ef ficient. Thedistrict court reviewed e ach version of therepor

t and re commendation, as w ell as Tucker’s objec tions to each of thethree versions, bef

ore adopting the mag istrate’s f indings a nd denying Tucker ’s habe as petition. The entire process of

deter mining the disposition of Tucker ’s petition “t[ook] placeunder thedistrict court’s total c ontrol and jurisdiction, and the judg e exerc ise[d] the ultimate authority to issue an appropriate order.” Ste

ph e nsv . To lbert , 4 7 1 F. 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 6 (1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Thomas v. 4 T hi s c ou rtre vi ew s f

or cl ea r e rr or the qu es t i on w hether a pet i t i on erexer ci se d d u e d ilig e n c e in d is c o v e r in g th e e v id e n c e u p o n w h ic h h e b a s e s h is § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n . I d. at71 1. T hi s s t andard requi re s us t o aff i rm a di stri ctcourt ' s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac t u n le s s th e r e c o r d la c k s s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e f a c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s . D rew v. D ep ’t

o f C o rr. , 29 7 F . 3d 12 78 , 12 83 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). In ca se s s uch as thi s, w here a m agi stra t e j ud ge has m ade a cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on base d o n an as se ss m en t o f w itn es se s’ in -c o u rt testim o n y, w e “d ef er to th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s det erm i nat i on s unl es s hi s und er st andi ng of the fa ct s app ea rs t o b e unb el i evabl e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R am i rez- C hi l el , 2 8 9 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T uc ke ra r gue s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons , a dopt e d by th e tr ia l c o u r t, w e r e in c o n s is te n t a n d th e r e f o r e in c r e d ib le . I n s u p p o r t o f th is a r gum e nt , T uc ke rpoi nt s t o the f a c ttha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge tw i c e r e vi s e d a nd supp l em ent ed hi s r eportand recom m endat i on (once atthe re qu es tof the di stri ct j ud ge and o nce s u a s

p o n te ) . S e ve r a l of

the f a c t s s e tf or th i n e a r l i e rve r s i ons of the 2Ar

n , 106 S. Ct . 466, 474 (1985)) . We find no merit to Tucker ’s challeng e to the mag istrate’s action. 5 m agi stra t e’ s r eportand recom m endat i on cont ra di ctfa ct s f ou nd i n t he fi nal re po rt a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n , le a d in g T u c k e rto c o n c lu d e th a t a ll of the court ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s w er e unrel i abl e. O f m ostconcern t o T ucker i s the fa ctthati n t he ori gi nal re po rtand recom m endat i on , fi l ed Ja nu ary 27, 20 06 , the m agi stra t e f ou nd that T ucker had asked hi s l aw ye r t o fi l e a n app ea l of hi s s ent ence and t hatthe l aw ye r di d n otdo so, a f

ac tthatw ou l d con st i tut e i neff ec t i ve as si st ance p er se . See P eguero v. U

ni t ed St at es , 11 9 S . C t . 96 1, 96 5 (19 99 ). In the se cond supp l em ent al r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on f i l e d M a y 3, 2006, the m a gi s tr a t e r e s c i nde d the f in d in g , c o n c lu d in g in s te a d th a t “c o u n s e l’s te s tim o n y th a t T u c k e rd id n o t a s k h im t o f i l e a not i c e of

appe a l [ w a s ] m or e c r e di bl e tha n T uc ke r ’ s ” t e s t i m ony t o the c o n tr a r y . A lth o u g h itis u n d er stan d ab le th at T u ck er o b jects to th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s u n ex p lain ed ch an g e o f m in d , h is fo cu s is m isp lace d . T h e d isp o siti o n o f T u ck er ’s ha be a s pe t i t i on tur ns noton w he the rhe a s ke d hi s l a w y e rt o f i l e a n a ppe a l , buton w h e th e rh e f

ile d h is h a b e a s p e titio n w ith in “o n e y e a ro f th e d a te o n w h ic h th e f a c ts s uppor t i ng the c l a i m orc l a i m s pr e s e nt e d c oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d thr ough the exer ci se of du e di l i gence. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5(4). T he m agi stra t e j ud ge w as cl ea r in h is f in d in g th a t T u c k e rw a s n o t d ilig e n t in th a t r e g a r d , a n d th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d idAlthough Tucker provided the c ourt with a copy of a le g al call request for m dated 3 October 12, 2004, the form c ontained no notations indicatingwhether the call was ever made . 6 no tcl ea rl y e rrby adop t i ng the m agi stra t e’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tand t he l egal c o n c l u s i o n s th a tf

l o w e d f r o m th e m. D uri ng the evi dent i ary hea ri ng hel d b ef ore the m agi stra t e j ud ge, T ucker t es t i fi ed un equi vo ca l l y thataf t erhe w as se nt ence d h e a sked hi s l aw ye r t o fi l e a n a ppe a l . T he r e m a i nde rof T uc ke r ’ s t e s t i m ony , w hi c h a ddr e s s e d the s t e ps he t ook be tw e e n s e nt e nc i ng a nd the f i l i ng of hi s § 2255 pe t i t i on, w a s di f f i c ul tt o f ol l ow a nd a tt i m e s c ontr a di c t or y . T uc ke rt e s t i f i e d tha ta f

t e rhi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng he s poke t o hi s l a w y e rf

ort e n m i nut e s a bouthi s de c i s i on t o a ppe a l ; a f e w br e a ths l a t e r , he t e s t i f i e d tha tthe c onve r s a t i on l a s t e d onl y f i ve s e c onds . A tone poi nti n the e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, T uc ke rt e s t i f i e d tha the be ga n w or ki ng w i th hi s c e l l m a t e on hi s ha be a s pe t i t i on be tw e e n f oura nd s e ve n m onths a f t e rbe i ng s e nt e nc e d, dur i ng the t i m e he a l l egedl y bel i eved hi s di re ctappeal w as pend i ng . L at er , he t es t i fi ed thathe began w ork o n t he pet i t i on i n earnestshort l y a ft erl ea rni ng thathi s l aw ye r had n otfi l ed an appeal ; ho w ever , he w as un abl e t o rec al l w hen h e di sc ov er ed that hi s app ea l had n otbeen fi l ed. T ucker adm i t t ed thathe m ade no effortt o con t ac t h is la w y e rto d is c u s s th e s ta tu s o f a n y a p p e a l, a lth o u g h h e d id tr y to o b ta in u n s p e c if ie d p a p e r w o r k f

r o m th e la w y e r . T u c k e ra d m itte d th a t h e m a d e n o e f f o r t to c o n ta c t th e c o u r t to c h e c k o n th e s ta tu s o f a p p e a l u n til O c to b e r2 0 0 4 a t th e e a r lie s t. 3As a p erip h er al m att er , Tu ck er t ak es i s s u e w i tha s ent en ce i nth e m agi s trat e j u d ge's 4 second revised report and re commendation which read, " A member of the c lerk' s officeat the Court of Appe a ls adv ise d th at when mail i s re c e ive d a nd no a pp e a l is pending , it

is u su a lly returne d to the inmate and sometimes for warded to the district cour t . . . . That did not happen in this case." The mag istrate judg e noted that there were no f orwa rded le tters in Tucker' s district court file, a

nd that no docket entries indicated that Tucker had inquired a

bout the status of any appeal. Tucker sug g ests that the mag istrate judg e' s relianc e on the a ppellate c lerk' s out of court statement violated his rights by preventing him from c ross-examining the c lerk a bout the proce dures f

or re turningmail to prisoners. In the third revise d repor t and re commendation, ho wever, themag istratejudg ec lari fi e d th at e ven if hehad n ot c on su lte d th ec le rk , h is c re dib ili ty deter mination would have remained the same bec ause of the contradictions and vag arie s of Tucker' s testimony . Any

relianc e on the c lerk' s statements was, at worst, a har mless error . 7 T he tr a ns c r i ptr e ve a l s tha tT uc ke rw a s unf a m i l i a rw i th l e ga l t e r m i nol ogy a nd m a y ha ve ha d di f

f i c ul ty unde r s t a ndi ng s om e of the que s t i ons pos e d t o hi m a tthe e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g . N e v e r th e le s s , it w a s n o t c le a r ly w r o n g f o rth e m a g is tr a te ju d g e to c o n c lu d e th a t T u c k e rc o u ld n o t p r o v id e a c o h e r e n t tim e lin e o f e v e n ts b e c a u s e h e h a d n o t a c te d a s d ilig e n tly a s h e c la im e d . T h e m a g is tr a te ’s c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n w a s b o ls te r e d b y th e f a c t th a t a lth o u g h T u c k e rte s tif ie d th a t h e w r o te t o the c our ti m m e di a t e l y a f t e rl e a r ni ng tha tthe r e w a s no a ppe a l pe ndi ng, he di d not pr oduc e c opi e s of

the l e t t e r s he ha d a l l e ge dl y w r i t t e n, a nd none w e r e f ound i n the di stri ctcourtfi l e. 4 T h e b a s is f

o rT u c k e r 's in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im w a s th e f a c t th a t h is la w y e rd id n o t f

ile a tim e ly a p p e a l w h e n a lle g e d ly a s k e d to d o s o . T h e m a g is tr a te j u d g e e mp h a s i z e d th a tTu c k e rc o u l d h a v e d i s c o v e r e d th i s f a c ta ta n y t i me f ol l ow i ng the e xpi r a t i on of hi s a ppe a l de a dl i ne i n M a y 2003, by c ont a c t i ng the8

courtor hi s l aw ye r. T ucker cont ends thatthe qu es t i on shou l d n othave been w hen it b e c a m e p o s s ib le f

o rT u c k e rto d is c o v e rth e in f o r m a tio n , b u t w h e n a r e a s o n a b ly di l i gentpers on w ou l d h ave s ou gh tthe i nform at i on and fou nd i t . T ucker ar gu es tha tbe c a us e the j udge f a i l e d t o s pe c i f

y a da t e by w hi c h a r e a s ona bl y di l i ge nt p e r s o n w o u ld h a v e d is c o v e r e d th a t n o a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g in th e c a s e , th e c o u r t's f in d in g o n d ilig e n c e w a s f la w e d . W hatT ucker overl oo ks i s that"the du e di l i gence i nq ui ry i s a n i nd i vi du al i ze d o n e, " A r on , 291 F . 3d a t712. T he m a gi s tr a t e w a s notr e qui r e d t o s pe c ul a t e a bout w hen a prot ot ypi ca l D i l i gentP er son w ou l d h ave i nq ui re d abo utthe st atus of a pr ot oty pi c a l a ppe a l , butr a the rw he n a r e a s ona bl y di l i ge ntpe r s on in p e titio n e r 's s i t uat i on w ou l d h ave t aken act i on thatl ed t o t he di sc ov ery thatno appeal had b ee n f ile d . A s the m a gi s tr a t e j udge poi nt e d outr e pe a t e dl y , T uc ke r ' s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng hi s a l l e ge d di l i ge nc e w a s va gue a nd unc onvi nc i ng. T uc ke ra nd hi s gi r l f r i e nd t es t i fi ed thatthey m ade r epea t ed att em pt s t o con t ac tT ucker' s tri al l aw ye r, bu tthey a s ke d f orpa pe r w or k, nota boutthe s t a tus of a ny pe ndi ng a ppe a l . A l though T ucker di d send h i s l aw ye r one l ett eras ki ng w hathad h appened t o "the appeal br i e f s , " he di d notdo s o unt i l F e brua r y 7, 2005, a de l a y the m a gi s tr a t e f ound t o be i ncon si st entw i th d i l i gentac t i on . M oreover, atthe evi dent i ary hea ri ng , T ucker9

coul d n otre m em ber w hen h e l ea rned thatthere w as no appeal , w hen h e began w or ki ng on the ha be a s pe t i t i on, orhow l ong he w a i t e d t o t a ke a c t i on a f t e rl e a r ni ng thatthere w as no pend i ng appeal . In the fa ce of these i nd i vi du al i ze d fac t s, i tw as r e a s o n a b le f

o rth e m a g is tr a te to c o n c lu d e th a t a r e a s o n a b ly d ilig e n t p e r s o n in T ucker' s posi t i on w ou l d h ave di sc ov er ed thatthere w as no pend i ng appeal m ore th a n o n e y e a rb e f

o r e T u c k e r 's h a b e a s p e titio n w a s f ile d . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e r ri n i t s f i ndi ng tha tT uc ke rdi d not exer ci se re as on abl e di l i gence, w hi ch m ea ns thatT ucker' s pet i t i on i s barre d as unt i m e l y . C ons e que nt l y , w e a r e una bl e t o c ons i de rthe unde r l y i ng m e r i t s of T u c k e r 's c la im th a t h is la w y e rw a s in e f f e c tiv e . AF F I RME D.