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

### A u gu s t 28, 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. M AR I O M E NDE Z - Z AM OR A,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3160 ( D . C t . N o. 03- C V - 3223- C M and 0 0 - C R - 2 0 0 6 6 - 3 - C M) (D . K a n .)

OR DER B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , HA RTZ , andTY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. 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 te rm in a tio n o f

th is ap p e a l. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he c a se is th e re f

o re o rd e re dsu b m itt e dw ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. M ar i o M endez - Z amora , a fe der al pr i s onerappear i ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce rt i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o chal l enge the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m o tio n to v a c a te , s e t a s id e , o r c o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e . See 2 8 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 ab 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) . W e w i l l i s s ue a CO A “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade as 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) . T hi s s t andar d r equi r es the- 2 -

p eti ti o n er to d em o n str ate “ that rea so n ab le j u ri sts co u ld d eb ate w h ethe r (or, fo r th at m att er, agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). M r. M e n d e z -Z a m o ra w a s in d icte do n f o u r c o u n ts o f

d ru g tra f

f ick in g . P u rsu a n t to an ag ree m en t w ith the G o v ern m en t, h e p lead ed g u il tyto o n e c o u n t of d istri b u ti n g m o re than 50 gr ams of methamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( vi i i ) , w hi ch carr i es w i th i ta s t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence of fi ve y ear s and a s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f f o rtyy e a rs , s ee 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) . A ts ent enci ng, th e D istric t C o u rt c a lcu late dth e o f f e n se lev e l b a se do n th e q u a n tityo f d ru g s in v o lv e din al l “r el evantconduct , ” s ee U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual( “U . S. S. G . ” or “G u idelines ”) § 1 B 1 . 3 , ap p li ed a tw o -l ev el en h an ce m en t bec au se M r. M en d ez -Z am o ra p la y e da le a d e rs h ip ro le in th e o f f e n s e , s ee U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) , and appl i ed a thr ee- l evel d e d u c tio n f

o r h is tim e ly ac c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility, s ee U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). T h is r es ul t ed i n an off

ens e l evelof 37. T he courts ent ence d M r . M endez - Z amorat o s erve 210 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, th e m in im u m term u n d e r th e ap p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . H is att orneyfi l ed a br i ef i n acc or dance w i th A n de rs v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 (19 6 7 ), arg u ing there w as n o b asis fo r ap p ea l. A p an el of this C o u rtag ree d ; w e u p h eld M r. M e n d e z -Z a m o ra ’s s e n ten c e o n d ire c t ap p e a l an dg ra n ted h is c o u n se l’s re q u e st to w ith d ra w . See U

nited S tates v. Mendez- Zam ora , 4 2 F e d . A p p ’x 1 8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). M r . M endez - Z amorathen fi l ed a habeas pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255 ar gui ng- 3 -

thathe r ece i ved i neff

ect i ve couns el i n connec t i on w i th hi s pl ea a gr eement , hi s s ent enci ng, and on appe al . T he D i s tr i ctC ourti s s ued a thor ough M emora ndum and O r deron M ar ch 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 co n clud ing that the re co rd sh o w s tha t no reli ef is w arran ted. T h e c o u rt subsequ entl yden i ed M r. M end ez-Za m ora’ s pet i t i on for a C O A , and he n ow app eal s. 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 , a habe as pet i t i oner 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 , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7

– 8 8 , 6 9 4 (1 9 8 4 ). A ft ercar efulcons i der at i on of the r ecor d and the appl i cabl e l aw , w e agr ee, for su b stan ti all ythe s am e re aso n s set fo rth b ythe D istri ct C o u rt , that M r. M en d ez -Z am o ra h a s f a iled to m a k e a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. A s to h is claim that h is co u n sel d id n o t fu ll yex p lai n the c o n seq u en ce s o f h is gu il typ lea, th e re co rd ampl ys upport s the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s fi ndi ng thatM r . M endez - Z amoraw as notpr ej udi ced byanyof hi s couns el ’ s al l eged e rr or s . I ndeed, atthe change of pl ea he ar i ng, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt sp e c if

ica llyv e rif

ied th a t M r. M e n d e z -Z a m o ra u n d e rsto o dth a t h is g u iltyp lea d id n o t li m it th e c o u rt’s d isc re tio n to im p o se a se n ten c e u p to th e sta tu to rym a x im u m o f f o rty y e a rs a n dth a t h e w o u ld b e s e n te n c e du n d e r th e G u id e lin e s . See Hi l lv. L ockh art , 474 U . S. 52, 59 ( 1985) ( i n the cont extof a gui l typl ea, t o s how thatcouns el ’ s defi ci ent p e rf o rm a n c e p re

ju d ice dth e d e f

e n se , the p e tit io n e r “ m u st s h o w th a t th e re is a re a so n ab le- 4 -

pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s err or s , he w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l ty ”) . T he D i s tr i ct C ourtal s o corr ect l yconcluded thatther e i s no bas i s forM r . M endez - Z amora ’ s cl ai m that h e re c e iv e din e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e d u ri n g h is s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g a n do n ap p e a l. A ccor di ngl y , w e D E N Y M r . M endez - Z amora ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS the ap p e a l. ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge