T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d .R .A p p .P .3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 6,2007 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. S AL VADOR DUR AN, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4178 ( D. C. No s . 2 : 0 6 - CV- 2 1 - P GC & 2 : 0 4 - CR- 3 9 6 - P GC) ( D i s tr i ctof U t ah)

OR DER DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. S a l v a d o rDu r a n p l e d g u i l tyt o o n e c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c yt o p o s s e s s 5 0 g r a ms o rmo r e o f

me th a mp h e t a mi n e wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e , 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 6 ; 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ; b a s e d i n p a r to n t h e fa c tt h a th e wa s fo u n d wi th 2 2 5 . 7 g r a ms of the drug, M r . D ur an w as s ent ence d t o 87 m onths of i m pr i s onm entand 60 m o n ths o f su p erv ised release . M r. D u ran d id n o t app ea l his sen tenc e. L ater, h o w e v e r, M r. D u ra n d id p u rsu e a fe d e ra l h a b e a s a c tio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 . I n h i s p e t i t i o n , M r . Du r a n a r g u e d , a mo n g o th e rt h i n g s , t h a tt h e S u p r e me- 2 -

C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , s houl d be appl i ed t o hi s s ent ence , and that hi s s ent ence exce eded the s t atut orym axi m um beca us e methamphet ami ne of the so rth e p o sses sed (po w d er fo rm ) i s a S ch ed u le III d rug , rathe r th an a S ch ed u le II drug. A ccor di ng t o M r . D ur an, had the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m for pos s es s i on of a Sche dul e I I I drug, the s ent enci ng r ange unde rthe G ui del i nes w o u ld h a v e b e e n 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the pet i t i on and M r . D ur an ther eaf t erfi l ed a m ot i on t o r econs i derar gui ng, fort he fi r s tt i m e, t hathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve assistan ce o f c o u n sel d u ri n g h is i n it ial crim inal p roc ee d ing . T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed thi s m ot i on as w el l , ci t i ng t hr ee gr ounds : ( i ) i thad no abi l i tyunder Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) t o r econs i deri t s rul i ng on a Sect i on 2255 pet i t i on; ( i i ) the new i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m w as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on; and ( i i i ) i n anyevent , D ur an r ai s ed the i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m aft er the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons as s oci at ed w i th Sect i on 2255 expi r ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o i s s ue a Cer t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) on anyof th e is s u e s p re s e n te d b yM r. D u ra n . M r. D u ra n n o w s e e k s a C O A f ro m th is C o u rt p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 . I n hi s appl i cat i on t o t hi s C our t , M r . D ur an makes a numberof ar gum ent s , w hi ch, a s b e st w e c a n a sc e rta in , b o il d o w n to th e se : (i) th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng hi m forpos s es s i on of a Sche dul e I I r athert han a- 3 -

Schedul e I I I drug beca us e met hamphet ami ne, atl eas ti n pow derform , s houl d be tr eat ed as a Schedul e I I I drug; and ( i i ) the type of met hamphet ami ne ( pow der ver s us l i qui d) , t ogetherw i th the quant i tyof drugs ati s s ue, ar e mat t er s thatcan o n lyb e d ec ided b ya juryaf ter B ookerand B la ke ly . M r. D u ra n d o e s n o t se e k to appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of hi s ar gum entr egar di ng i neffect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatnone of thes e i s s ues m er i t s the i s s uance of a CO A beca us e M r . D ur an has notm ade a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . Fi r s t , w e fi nd unper s uas i ve M r . D ur an’ s ar gum entconce rni ng the s chedul i ng of pow der m e th a m p h e tam in e . W h ile C o n g re ss in iti a llyp lac e d m o st a m p h e tam in e s in S c h e d u le I II ra th e r th a n S c h e d u le I I, in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 1 2 (c ) C o n g re ss e x p re ss ly di r ect ed thati t s i ni t i al s chedul i ng deci s i ons m aybe amended “pur s uantt o s ect i on 8 1 1 .” In tu rn , 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 1 1 p ro v id e s th a t “th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yb yru le

. . . add t o s uch a s chedul e [e s t abl i s hed bySect i on 812] ortr ans ferbetw een s uch s c h e d u le s a n yd ru g o r o th e r s u b s ta n c e ” if h e c o m p lie s w ith c e rt a in re q u ir e m e n ts . 21 U . S . C . § 8 11 (a) (1) . A nd , as i thap pen s, m et ham ph et am i ne, i n all form s, p o w d e r o r o th e rw ise , h a s b e e n re c las sified b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l as a S c h e d u le II d ru g p u rs u a n t to 2 1 C .F .R . § 1 3 0 8 .1 2 (d ) a n d S e c tio n 8 1 1 . See , e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Sul l i van , 967 F. 2d 370, 372- 73 ( 10th C i r . 1992) . M r . D ur an does notT he D i s tr i ctC our tw as thus appar ent l ym i s t aken i n i t s § 2255 O r derw hen 1 it d ism iss e d M r. D u ra n ’s m o tio n o n th e g ro u n d th a t B ookercannotbe (c o n tin u e d ...) - 4 - r ai s e anychal l enge t o the effec t i venes s ors cope of the rul e pr om ul gat ed bythe A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. Second, M r . D ur an ar gues thatthe type and qua nt i tyof m ethamphet ami ne are issue s tha t, af

ter B ookerand B la ke ly , had t o be dec i ded bya j ur y . Y et , as not ed above , al l form s of m ethamphet ami ne have been pr oper l ycl as s i fi ed as S c h e d u le II d ru g s , s ee 21 C . F. R . § 1308. 12( d) ; acc or di ngl y , w hetherthe type of m e th a m p h e ta m in e w a s p o w d e r o r l iq u id is o f n o m o m e n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Macedo , 406 F. 3d 778, 785 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( “[W ] e now fi nd thatthe re c las sifica tio n o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e a s a sc h e d u le I I su b sta n c e a p p lies to a ll form s of m ethamphet ami ne i n acc or dance w i th 21 C . F. R . § 1308. 12( d) des pi t e the s t atut e’ s di s t i nct i on. ”) . Fur ther , w hi l e B oo ker ap p ea rs t o ap p lyto M r. D u ran ’s cas e, gi ven thathe w as s ent ence d aft eri tw as deci ded, t he cl erk’ s m i nut es reg ard ing M r. D u ran ’s sen tenc ing o n Jan u ary2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , d ir ec t on e to “ [s]e e re co rd fordet ai l s r egar di ng B ooker . ” The r ecor d r evea l s t hat , i n the w r i t t en or der r egar di ng M r . D ur an’ s s ent ence , t he D i s tr i ctC our texpr es s l ys t at ed thati tw as “e x erc isi n g it s d iscreti o n ” a n d fo ll o w ed the G u idelines in im p o sing M r. D u ran ’s 8 7 -m o n th se n ten c e . T h u s, to th e e x ten t M r. D u ra n a rg u e s th a t B ookersh o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p lied to h is s e n ten c e , w e fin d th a t it w as appl i ed byt he D i s tr i ct C o u rt. A n d to th e e x ten t M r. D u ra n a rg u e s th a t B ookerr equi r ed a j ur y , as

1( . . . cont i nued) 1 r etr oact i vel yappl i ed. - 5 - oppos ed t o a j udge, t o fi nd t he quant i tyof m ethamphet ami ne ati s s ue, that a r g u m e n ti s s q u a r e l y p r e c l u d e d b y B ookera n d o u r p re c e d e n t. See Booker , 543 U .S . at 2 3 3 (h o ld in g th a t “th e se lec tio n o f p a rticu lar se n ten c e s in re sp o n se to d iffe rin g se ts o f

fa c ts [ u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s] w o u ld n o t im p lica te th e S ix th A m endment . W e have neverdoubt ed the author i tyof a j udge t o exer ci s e br oad d isc re tio n in im p o sin g a se n ten c e w ith in a sta tu to ryra n g e .”); Uni t ed Stat es v. Ha ll , 473 F. 3d 1295, 1312 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( r ej ect i ng defe ndant ’ s ar gum entthat u n d er Appr endiv. New Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), B la ke ly , and B ooker , the relev an t qu an ti tyo f d rug s fo r sen tenc ing is no m o re tha n the q u an ti tythe ju ry fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t: “B e c a u se th e p o st- B ookerG u idelines are d i s c r e t i o n a r y, a d i s tr i c tc o u r tm a y c o n t i n u e t o fi n d fa c t s , i n c l u d i n g d ru g q u a n t i t y, b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce . ”). Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e denyM r . D ur an’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and d is m is s h is a p p e a l. So or der ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge