### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Au gus t 10, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 12513 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 95 -C R -04-4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E R E M Y R A Y S I M S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 10, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J e r e m y R a y S im s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to ag u ilty pl ea , for c on spi ra cyagai nstri gh t s, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 41 . S i m s argues thathi s gui l ty pl eaand sent ence shou l d b e vac at ed because hi s a tt orney w as2

o p e r a tin g u n d e ra n im p e rm is s ib le c o n f lic t o f in te r e s t, in v io la tio n o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, b y s im u lta n e o u s lyr e p r e s e n tin g S im s a n d tw o o f h is c o - d e f

e n d a n ts . S im s a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt: ( 1 ) c o m m itte d p la in e rr o rb ye n h a n c in g h is sen t en ce, b ased o n fact s th atw ere n o tch arg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en t , p ro v ed t o a j u ry, ors t i pul a t e d t o by hi m , i n vi ol a t i on of B l a ke l yv. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) ; a nd ( 2) e rr e d by gr ant i ng a n e nha nc e m e ntpur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1 f or aggravat i ng rol e. T he go vernm entm ov es t o d i sm i ss S i m s’ s app ea l of hi s s ent ence b e c au s e h e v a l i d l y w a i v e d h i s r i g h tt o ap p e a l . Be c au s e th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a tSi ms know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e , w e gr a ntthe g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n a s to S im s ’s s e n te n c in g is s u e s . W e d e n yth e m o tio n a s to h is c o u n s e l ’ s c o n f

l i c to f i n t e r e s tc l a i m b u t , b e c au s e th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a tSi ms k n o w in g lya n d in te llig e n tlyw a iv e d h is r ig h t to c o n f lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l, a f

f irm h is c onvi c t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D S i m s and fi ve co-defe nd ant s w er e i nd i ct ed for: (1) c on spi ra cyt o i nj ure, oppr e s s , thr e a t e n a nd i nt i m i da t e thr e e i ndi vi dua l s i n the f r e e e xe r c i s e of

the i rr i ght t o h o l d an d o ccu p y a d w el l i n g w i th o u ti n j u ry, i n t i m i d at i o n , o r i n t erferen ce b ecau se of r a c e , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 241 ( C ount1) ; a nd ( 2) byf or c e a nd thr e a tof3

f or c e , a nd by us e of

f i r e , w i l l f ul l y i nj ur i ng, i nt i m i da t i ng, a nd i nt e r f e r i ng w i th the s a m e in d iv id u a ls in th e iro c c u p a tio n o f ad w e llin g , o n a c c o u n t o f th e irr a c e , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2 a nd 42 U . S . C . § 3631( b) ( C ount2) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the i n d i ctm en tch arg ed th atth e p l an o f th e co n sp i racy w as “ t o erectan d i g n i t e a cro ss i n the vi s i bl e vi c i ni ty of the vi c t i m s ’ dw e l l i ng i n or de rt o i nt i m i da t e , pr e ve nt , a nd d is c o u r a g e th e v ic tim s f r o m e x e r c is in g th e irp r o te c te d r ig h ts .” R 1 - 1 a t 1 - 2 . D u ri n g S i m s’ s i n i t i al ap p earan ce an d arrai g n m en t , S i m s’ s ret ai n ed att o rn ey, A l l e n To w n s e n d , i d e n t i f i e d h i ms e l f

t o th e c o u rta n d s t a t e d th a th e r e p r e s e n t e d Si ms a nd tw o of

hi s c o- de f

e nda nt s . R 2 a t2, 4. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge a ddr e s s e d the is s u e s r e g a r d in g th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f m u ltip le c lie n ts b yo n e a tto rn e ya n d c o n f lic ts of i nt er es t . Id. at4-5, 19 -21. H e t ol d S i m s and hi s c o-defendant s thatthey e ac h ha d “ ar i ghtt o be r e pr e s e nt e d by al a w y e r. . . [ w ho di d not ] ha ve . . . ac onf l i c tof i nt e r e s t. . . [ a nd] w hos e l oy a l ty i s t o y ou a nd notc om pr om i s e d bya ny re pres ent at i on of any other pers on . ” I d. at19 . T he m agi strat e j ud ge then e x p la in e d s o m e p o te n tia l p r o b le m s th a t c o u ld o c c u rw h e n ala w y e rh a d ac o n f lic t, i nc l udi ng s pe c i f

i c a l l ya dvi s i ng tha ts uc h ac onf l i c tc oul d “ pr e ve ntthe l a w y e rf r om ar gu i ng the re l evantcul pabi l i ty of the defendant s t o the se nt enci ng court . ” I d. at 21. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge the n i ndi vi dua l l ya ddr e s s e d S i m s a nd e a c h of hi s c ode f e nda nt s w ho w e r e r e pr e s e nt e d byT ow ns e nd, a nd i nqui r e d w he the rT ow ns e nd4

had exp l ai ned t o them the po t ent i al confl i ctof i nt er es t s and they e ac h res po nd ed

“ ye s. ” I d. at2, 24 . S i m s i nd i ca t ed thatT ow nsend t ol d h i m “ i f there w as a c on fl i ct of i nt er es t , he coul dn ’ tre pres ental l three of us. ” I d. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge as ked S i m s w he the rhe unde r s t ood ( 1) tha the ha d ar i ghtt o hi s ow n s e pa r a t e a tt orne y , ( 2) h o w c o n f

l i c t s c a n a r i s e , a n d ( 3 ) th e p o t e n t i a l f o rc o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t , a n d Si ms s ta te d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d . S im s th e n in d ic a te d , w ith y e s a n d n o a n s w e r s , th a t h e : ( 1) di d notw a nthi s ow n a tt orne y t o r e pr e s e nthi m ; ( 2) w a nt e d t o be r e pr e s e nt e d by T o w n s e n d d e s p ite th e p o te n tia l f o rc o n f lic ts o f in te r e s t; ( 3 ) w a s w a iv in g h is r ig h t to as e pa r a t e a tt orne y ; a nd ( 4) unde r s t ood tha the m i ght“ be gi vi ng up [ hi s ] c l a i m on appeal that[hi s] l aw ye r w as i neff ec t i ve . . . because he had a confl i ctof i nt er es t . ” I d. a t25- 26. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge the n appr ove d the m ul t i pl e r e pr e s e nt a t i on, f in d in g th a t th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t ac o n f lic t w o u ld a r is e . I d . a t 2 6 . S im s s u b s e q u e n tlys ig n e d aw r itte n “w a iv e ro f r ig h t to c o n f

lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l,” in w h ic h h e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e h a d : be e n t ol d tha t. . . I ha ve the r i ghtt o [ be ] r e pr e s e nt e d byal a w y e rw ho d o e s n o t h a v e a n y c o n f

lic t o f in te r e s t.

. . . . T he po ss i bl e probl em s thatcan o cc ur w hen a l aw ye r has a c on fl i ctof i nt er es thave been expla i ned t o m e by the C ou rt and m y l aw ye r. T h e s e p r o b le m s in c lu d e , . . . :

. . . . (2) T he go vernm entcoul d v i ew m y r ol e and thatof the other p e r s o n r e p r e s e n te d b ym yla w y e rd if f e r e n tly .5

. . . . (4 ) R ep resen t i n g tw o p erso n s i n th e sam e case o r co n tro v ersy m a y pr e ve ntthe l a w y e rf r om a r gui ng the r e l a t i ve c ul pabi l i tyof th e d e f e n d a n ts to th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt.

. . . . I vol un t ar i l y and kn ow i ng l y gi ve up m y r i gh tt o h ave a d if f e r e n t la w y e rap p o in te d to r e p r e s e n t m e . . . . I f urthe runde r s t a nd tha tbygi vi ng up m yr i ghtt o ha ve d i fferen t , sep arat e co u n sel t o rep resen tm e i n th i s case, I al so ma y b e g i v i n g u p th e r i g h tt o c l a i m o n ap p e a l . . . th a tmy l aw yer d i d n o tp ro v i d e effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel b ecau se h e /s h e . . . h a d ac o n f

lic t o f in te r e s t. R 1 - 1 3 a t 1 - 4 . S i m s e nt er ed i nt o a nego t i at ed pl eaagre em enti n w hi ch he agree d t o p l ea d g u iltyto C o u n t 1 o f

th e in d ic tm e n t in e x c h a n g e f o rth e g o v e rn m e n t’s a g r e e m e n t to di sm i ss C ou nt2. T he pl eaagre em enti ncl ud ed a s ent ence -w ai ver provi si on that p r o v id e d in p e rtin e n t p a rt: T o the m a xi m um e xt e ntpe rm i tt e d byf e de r a l l a w , the de f

e nda nt vol unt a r i l y a nd e xpr e s s l y w a i ve s the r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e a nd the r i ghtt o c ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c k hi s s e nt e nc e i n a nypos t - c onvi c t i on proceedi ng on any groun d, exce ptthatthe defendantm ayfi l e adi re ct ap p e a l o f ( a ) a n u p w a r d d e p a rtu r e f r o m th e o th e rw is e ap p lic ab le gui de l i ne r a nge a nd ( b) af i ndi ng by the c ourttha t§ 2K 1. 4( a ) ( 1) of the S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s ap p lie s to th e d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n s e c o n d u c t. R 1- 28, P l e aA gr e e m e nta t2. T he pl e aa gr e e m e nta l s o c ont a i ne d ac e rt i f i c a t i on, s i gne d by S i m s , w hi c h s t a t e d tha the unde r s t ood:

. . . the t e rm s a nd c ondi t i ons c ont a i ne d i n the P l e aA gr e e m e nt , a nd I vol unt a r i l y a gr e e t o the m . I a l s o ha ve di s c us s e d w i th m ya tt orne ythe r i ght s I m a y ha ve t o appe a l orc ha l l e nge m ys e nt e nc e , a nd I6

unde r s t a nd tha tthe appe a l w a i ve rc ont a i ne d i n the P l e aA gr e e m e nt w i l l pr e ve ntm e , w i th the na rr ow e xc e pt i ons s t a t e d, f r om appe a l i ng m y s e nt e nc e orc ha l l e ngi ng m ys e nt e nc e i n a nypos t - c onvi c t i on p r o c e e d in g . I d . a t 7 . A tthe pl eahear i ng , S i m s i nd i ca t ed thathe (1) had di sc usse d the pl ea a g r e e m e n t w ith h is la w y e r , ( 2 ) h a d s ig n e d it, a n d ( 3 ) u n d e r s to o d th a t, b ys ig n in g it, he w as ent er i ng a gui l ty pl eat o C ou nt1 o f the i nd i ctm ent . S i m s a l so answ er ed a f f irm a tiv e lyw h e n a s k e d b y th e d is tr ic t ju d g e if h e s till w a n te d to p r o c e e d w ith T o w n s e n d a s h is c o u n s e l a n d w h e th e rh e u n d e r s to o d th a t h e h a d ar ig h t to s e p a r a te c ouns e l , a nd S i m s s a i d “ Y e s . ” R 3 a t6- 7. T he di s tr i c tc ourte ns ur e d tha tno one h ad co er ce d S im s to ten d erth e g u il ty p lea, an d re ad th e p lea a g re em en t an d S im s’s ce rt i fi ca t i on i nt o the re cord. S i m s a l so af fi rm at i vel y r es po nd ed t o the di stri ct j udge ’ s i nqui ry a s t o w he the ri tw a s S i m s ’ s unde r s t a ndi ng tha tthe pl e aa gr e e m e nt r e a d in to th e r e c o r d w a s th e c o m p le te a g r e e m e n t a n d w h e th e rh e w a s s a tis f ie d w ith i t . T he di stri ctcourti nform ed S i m s thathe had a ri gh tt o app ea l t o a hi gh ercourt w ith o u t c o s t b u t th a t, b y e n te r in g th e p le aa g r e e m e n t, w a s w a iv in g h is r ig h t to appeal exce ptas t o the i ss ues l i st ed i n the agree m ent . W hen asked w hether that w a s w h a th e w a n t e d t o d o a n d w h e th e rh i s p l e aw a s f r e e a n d v o l u n t a ry , Si ms r e pl i e d “ Y e s , s i r . ” I d. a t41- 42. A f t e robs e rvi ng tha tS i m s w a s notunde rthe i nfl uence of any drugs or subst ance s thatm ayhave eff ec t ed hi s pl ea , the di stri ctThe guideline for a violation of 18 U. S . C . § 241 is § 2H1.1(a) (1), which cross-referenc es 1 the guideline for theunderlying of fense , arson, which is § 2K1.4(a) (3).

7 c o u rt a c c e p te d h is g u iltyp le aa s to C o u n t 1 . A c c or di ng t o the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e port( ‘ P S I ” ) , a ts om e poi nt d u r in g th e e v e n in g o f

4 N o v e m b e r2 0 0 3 , S im s a n d h is f iv e c o - d e f

e n d a n ts c ongr e ga t e d a tS i m s ’ s r e s i de nc e a nd be ga n c ons um i ng a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge s . T he c onve r s a t i on turne d t o ar a c i a l l y - m i xe d c oupl e w ho w a s vi s i t i ng the a r e a , a nd the de f e nda nt s a gr e e d t o c ons truc tac r os s t o be pl a c e d a tthe r e s i de nc e w he r e the c o u p l e w a s s t a y i n g a n d s e tab l a z e . Th e d e f e n d a n t s o b t a i n e d l u mb e r , a n d Si ms c ons truc t e d the c r os s , w hi c h the y s hr oude d w i th c l oth a nd dous e d i n tr a ns m i s s i on fl ui d. T he grou p then (1) pu tthe cr oss i n S i m s’ s truck, (2) drove t o the re si dence, (3) unl oaded the cr oss a tthe end o f the dri vew ay , and (4) se ti ton fi re . L at er , th ree co -d efen d an t s retu rn ed t o th e scen e o f th e cri m e, an d , fi n d i n g th atth e cro ss w as no tl i t , succ es sf

ul l y l i tthe cr oss and re turned t o S i m s’ s r es i dence. In an ef fort t o a ttr a c ta tt e nt i on t o the burni ng c r os s , a nothe rc o- de f e nda ntr e port e d the i nc i de nt t o the po l i ce . T h e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rs e t S im s ’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l a t 1 6 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 H 1 .1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d to § 2 K 1 .4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , w h ic h s p e c if ie s th a t 1 the of f e ns e l e ve l i s 2, pl us the of f e ns e l e ve l de t e rm i ne d a c c or di ng t o § 2B 1. 1,Pursuant to § 2B1.1(a)(2) , Sims ’s baseoffense leve l was 6, but bec ause theoffense involved 2 the consc ious or reckless risk of death or bodi ly injury, pursuant to § 2B 1.1(b)( 11)(A) , the re sulting offense leve l was 14. 8 w hi c h w a s 14. T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rthe n i nc r e a s e d thi s l e ve l : ( 1) by 3, pur s ua nt 2 t o § 3A 1. 1( a ) , s i nc e the vi c t i m s w e r e s e l e c t e d be c aus e of the i rr a c e ; a nd ( 2) by4, pu rs uantt o § 3B 1. 1(a) , si nce S i m s w as i n a l ea ders hi p rol e. B as ed on a t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l of

23, a nd w i th ac r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e goryof I , S i m s ’ s pr e s um pt i ve g u id e lin e r a n g e o f

im p r is o n m e n t w a s 4 6 - 5 7 m o n th s . S i m s obj e c t e d t o the § 3B 1. 1( a ) r ol e e nhanc e m e nt . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, a tw hi c h S i m s a l one w a s s e nt e nc e d, T ow ns e nd a r gue d tha tthe f our - poi nt enhancem entfor al ea ders hi p rol e w as un fa i r bec ause : (1) S i m s w as no tthe l ea der, o rg an i zer, o r su p erv i so r o f th e i n ci d en t ; (2 ) i tw as a j o i n ten t erp ri se w i th atl east four part i ci pant s, tw o o f w ho m arri ved l at er ; and (3) i tw as j ustci rc um st ance that the i nci denti nv ol ved S i m s’ s r es i dence and truck. T he go vernm entre spon ded that ar ol e e nha nc e m e ntw a s appr opr i a t e be c aus e S i m s pi c ke d up tw o of hi s c ode f e nda nt s , f

a c i l i t a t e d the c r e a t i on of the c r os s a thi s r e s i de nc e , dr ove the truc k a nd h i s c o - d e f

e n d a n t s t o th e v i c t i ms ’ s r e s i d e n c e , a n d i n s tru c t e d ac o - d e f e n d a n tt o c o me up w i th a st ory t o t el l the po l i ce . T he courtsust ai ned S i m s’ s obj ec t i on t o the fourl e v e l e n h a n c e me n t , b u tap p l i e d atw o - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n t , f i n d i n g th a tSi ms “e x e r c is e d s o m e m a n a g e m e n t r e s p o n s ib ility ” r e g a r d in g th e in c id e n t. R 5 a t 2 3 - 2 4 .9

S i m s w as then sent ence d t o 4 6 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent , and 3 ye ar s of s up ervi se d r e le a s e . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A. W ai ver of R i gh tt o A pp ea l A f te rS im s h a d f

ile d h is in itia l b r ie f

o n ap p e a l, th e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to di sm i ss the appeal , ar gu i ng thatS i m s val i dl y w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l and h ad r a i s e d no i s s ue s on appe a l e xc e pt e d f r om the w a i ve r . S i m s r e s ponde d tha t , a tthe t i m e w he n he e nt e r e d hi s gui l ty pl e a , he w a s ope r a t i ng unde ra n a c tua l c onf l i c tof in te r e s t w h ic h m a d e b o th th e p le aa g r e e m e n t a n d th e ap p e a l w a iv e rin v a lid . W e r e vi e w de novo the l e ga l que s t i on of w he the rade f

e nda ntknow i ngl ya nd vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B us he rt , 997 F . 2d 13 43 , 13 52 (11th C i r. 19 93 ). P l eaagre em ent s and ac com panyi ng w ai vers ar e perm i ss i bl e and , i nd ee d, ar e “ i m po rt antcom po nent s” i n o ur cr i m i nal j ust i ce syst em . Id . at1 3 4 7 (i n t ern al ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). A n effecti v e ap p eal w ai v er m u st be m ade kno w i ng l y and vo l un t ar i l y. Id. at13 50 . T here fore , “ for ase nt ence -app ea l w ai ver t o b e e nforceabl e, [t ] he go vernm entm ustshow thatei ther ( 1) the di stri ct courtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed the defendantconcerni ng the se nt ence appeal w ai ver dur i ng the [ pl e a ] c ol l oquy , or( 2) i ti s m a ni f e s t l yc l e a rf

r om the r e c or d tha tthe de f e nda ntothe rw i s e unde r s t ood the f ul l s i gni f i c a nc e of the w a i ve r . ” W i l l i a m s v.10

U ni t e d S t a t e s , 396 F . 3d 1340, 1341 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S p e c if ic a lly , w e h a v e a ls o h e ld th a t “th e r ig h t to ap p e a l a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n A p p r e n d i /B o o k e rg r o u n d s c a n b e w a iv e d in ap le aa g r e e m e n t. B r oa d w a i ve rl a ngua ge c ove r s thos e gr ounds of appe a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ubbo, 3 9 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S i m s ’ s pl e aa gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d abr oa d s e nt e nc e - appe a l w a i ve r , s t a t i ng th a t: “th e d e f

e n d a n t v o lu n ta r ilya n d e x p r e s s lyw a iv e s th e r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e nt e nc e a nd the r i ghtt o c ol l a t e r a l l ya tt a c k hi s s e nt e nc e i n a nypos tc onvi c t i on p r o c e e d i n g o n an y g r o u n d . ” Se e R1 - 2 8 , p l e aa g r e e me n ta t2 . A l th o u g h Si ms r e s e rve d the r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e f or( 1) “ a n upw a r d de pa rtur e f r om the otherw i se appl i cabl e gui del i ne rang e” and (2) a fi nd i ng by the se nt enci ng courtthat U . S . S . G . § 2K 1. 4( a ) ( 1) appl i e s t o hi s of f e ns e c onduc t , he di d r a i s e i s s ue s r e ga r di ng e i the rof the s e e xc e pt i ons on appe a l . S e e i d. ; s e e ge ne r a l l yS i m s ’ s br i e f . T he w ai ver use s broad, sw ee pi ng l angu age, and there i s no i nd i ca t i on thatthe part i es in te n d e d to e x c e p t a n a r g u m e n t b a s e d o n B o o k e r . S e e R u b b o , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 5 . T he r e c or d s how s tha t , dur i ng the c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng, the c ourtr e a d the p le aa g r e e m e n t in to th e r e c o r d a n d S im s in d ic a te dth a t h e w a s s a tis f ie d w ith it. T he c ourti nf

orm e d S i m s tha the ha d ar i ghtt o appe a l w i thouta nyc os tt o hi m , but th a t , b y e n t e r i n g th e p l e aa g r e e me n t , h e w a s w a i v i n g h i s r i g h tt o ap p e a l , a n d Si ms11

st at ed thatthatw as w hathe w i shed t o d o. S i m s s peci fi ca l l y s w ore thathi s pl ea w a s e nt i r e l y f

r e e a nd vol unt a ry , a nd he s i gne d as t a t e m e nttha the unde r s t ood he w as w ai vi ng hi s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence . B ec ause S i m s’ s s ent ence -app ea l w a i ve rw a s know i ngl y a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l ym a de , he w a i ve d hi s a r gum e nt s tha t : ( 1) hi s s e nt e nc e w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l l ye nha nc e d ba s e d on f a c t s notc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a dm i tt e d by S i m s , orpr ove n t o aj ury , i n vi ol a t i on of B l a ke l ya nd B o o k e r ; a n d ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b ye n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n h is r o le i n the offens e. H ow ever , i ti s possi bl e thatS i m s has no tw ai ved h i s r i gh tt o rai se on di re ct ap p e a l th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o ro p e r a tin g u n d e ran im p e rm is s ib le c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s tbe c aus e the t e rm s of the s e nt e nc e - appe a l w a i ve rdo notm e nt i on o rc o v e rs u c h ac l a i m, w h i c h g o e s t o Si ms ’ s c o n v i c t i o n . Se e R1 - 2 8 . Th e Su p r e me C ourtha s s t a t e d tha t , i n m os tc a s e s , i ti s pr e f e r abl e t o de c i de a n i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m thr ough a28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e i ns t e a d of adi r e c tappe a l . M a s s a r o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 538 U . S . 500, 504, 123 S . C t . 1690, 1 6 9 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . H o w e v e r , w e w ill r e v ie w an in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im on di re ctappeal i f the re cord i s s uffi ci ent l y devel op ed. U ni t ed S t at es v. B ender, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). B ec au se th e r ec o rd re g ar d in g S im s’s in ef fe ctiv e a ss istan ce claim is su ff icien tl y d ev elo p ed , w e g ra n t th e g o v ern m en t’ s12

m o tio n to d is m is s in p a rt a s to th e s e n te n c in g is s u e s th a t S im s r a is e s , a n d d e n yin p a rta s t o Si ms ’ s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. B . W ai ver of the ri gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c ou nsel O n app ea l , S i m s argues thathi s gui l ty pl eaand sent ence shou l d b e vac at ed b e c au s e h is a tto rn e y w a s o p e r a tin g u n d e ran im p e rm is s ib le c o n f lic t o f in te r e s t, in vi ol at i on of the S i xth A m endm ent , si nce hi s c ou nsel si m ul t aneousl y r epre se nt ed S im s a n d tw o o f

h is c o - d e f

e n d a n ts . H e c o n te n d s th a t, w h ile h e w a s in itia lly a dvi s e d of

hi s r i ghtt o c onf

l i c t - f r e e c ouns e l , hi s w a i ve rw a s i na de qua t e be c aus e the i ss ue w as no tre vi si t ed by the di stri ctcourtw hen, du ri ng se nt enci ng , the po t ent i al co n fl i ctb ecam e an actu al co n fl i ct . H e av ers th atan actu al co n fl i cto f i n t erest e xi s t e d a ts e nt e nc i ng be c aus e the P S I r e c om m e nde d tha tS i m s ’ s s e nt e nc e be en h an ced b ased o n h i s al l eg ed ro l e as a l ead er, w h i l e h i s co -d efen d an t , S t acy Jo n es, a n o th e ro f

T o wn s e n d ’ s c l i e n t s , wa s n o tf a c i n g s u c h ar o l e e n h a n c e m e n t . He c o n te n d s th a t ad e f

e n s e to s u c h a n e n h a n c e m e n t w o u ld h a v e d e m a n d e d th a t h is att orney harm Jon es by hi gh l i gh t i ng Jones’ s a gg ra vat i ng rol e. S i m s m ai nt ai ns that hi s app ea l i s anal og ou s t o U ni t ed S t at es v. S w art z, 97 5 F . 2d 10 42 (4th C i r. 19 92 ), i n w hi c h the de f

e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on w a s r e ve r s e d w he r e , a l though the de f e nda nt had w ai ved h erri gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c ou nsel du ri ng the i ni t i al proceedi ng s, such w a i v e rw a s i n a d e q u a t e w h e n a n a c tu a l c o n f l i c td e v e l o p e d a ts e n t e n c i n g . Si ms13

a r gue s tha thi s w a i ve rof c onf l i c t - f r e e c ouns e l w a s notknow i ng ori nt e l l i ge nt be c aus e : ( 1) the c ourts houl d ha ve e nga ge d S i m s , w ho ha d l i m i t e d e duc a t i on, m ore t o ensure thathe trul y und er st oo d w hathe w as w ai vi ng ; and (2) hi s answ er s t o the a s ke d que s t i ons do notde m ons tr a t e a n unde r s t a ndi ng of the na tur e of

the c o n f lic t. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f f a c t a n d la w r e g a r d in g c o n f lic ts of i nt er es t . U ni t ed S t at es v. Jones, 52 F . 3d 92 4, 92 5 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). “ A cr i m i nal d e f e n d a n t's r ig h t to e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l is v io la te d w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t's att orney has an ac tual confl i ctof i nt er es tthataf fe ct s the defendantadvers el y. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 9 8 2 F .2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) .

“ A l tho ug h a defendantm ayw ai ve hi s r i gh tt o the as si st ance of an att orney u n h in d e r e d b y ac o n f

lic t o f in te r e s ts , s u c h w a iv e r s a r e n o t to b e lig h tlyo rc a s u a lly i nf e rr e d a nd m us tbe know i ngl y a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l ym a de . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l r e d, 1 4 4 F .3 d 1 4 0 5 , 1 4 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . F oraw a i ve rt o be know i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge nt , “ [ t ] he r e c or d m us ts how tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s a w a r e of

the c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s t ; r e a l i z e d the c onf l i c tc oul d a f

f e c tthe de f e ns e ; a nd kne w of

the r i ghtt o obt a i n othe rc ouns e l . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “A d e te rm in a tio n th a t d e f e n d a n ts h a v e w a iv e d th e r ig h t to confl i ct -f re e c ou nsel di sposes of the need t o eval uat e the ac tual or po t ent i al14

i neff ec t i veness of coun se l caused by the al l eged confl i ct s of i nt er es t . ” R od ri gu ez , 982 F . 2d a t477. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrb ya c c e p tin g S im s ’s p le ao rs e n te n c in g h im de s pi t e hi s a tt orne y ’ s s i m ul t a ne ous r e pr e s e nt a t i on of S i m s a nd tw o of

hi s c od e f e n d a n ts b e c au s e S im s k n o w in g lya n d in te llig e n tlyw a iv e d h is r ig h t to c o n f lic tfr ee coun se l . T he m agi strat e j ud ge: (1) i nform ed S i m s of hi s r i gh tt o a l aw ye r w i tho utconfl i ct s; (2) e xp l ai ned thaton e of the prob l em s w i th h avi ng a c on fl i ct ed a tt orne y w oul d be tha tthe a tt orne ym a ybe pr e ve nt e d f r om a r gui ng r e l e va nt c ul pabi l i ty t o the s e nt e nc i ng c ourt ; ( 3) a ddr e s s e d S i m s pe r s ona l l ya nd e l i c i t e d a s ta te m e n t f

r o m h im ; a n d ( 4 ) e n s u r e d th a t S im s u n d e r s to o d . S im s in d ic a te d th a t: (1) he w i shed t o b e r epre se nt ed by T ow nsend i n spi t e of any confl i ct s; (2) w as w a i vi ng hi s r i ghtt o as e pa r a t e a tt orne y ; a nd ( 3) unde r s t ood tha the m a ybe gi vi ng up hi s r i ghtt o c l a i m on appe a l tha thi s a tt orne yw a s i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e of

the c onf l i c t . A ddi t i ona l l y , S i m s : ( 1) c e rt i f i e d tha the w a s “ f

ul l ys a t i s f

i e d w i th the r e p r e s e n ta tio n p r o v id e d ” to h im b yh is a tto rn e y ; ( 2 ) s ig n e d aw r itte n w a iv e ro f h is r ig h t to c o n f

lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l, w h ic h a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h is la w y e r ’s c o n f lic t c o u ld pr e ve nthi m f

r om a r gui ng r e l a t i ve c ul pabi l i tya ts e nt e nc i ng; a nd ( 3) dur i ng the c h a n g e - o f

- p le ah e a r in g , r e a f

f irm e d h is in te n t to p r o c e e d w ith T o w n s e n d a s h is a tt orne y de s pi t e hi s r i ghtt o hi s ow n c ouns e l . S e e R 1- 13, 28, pl e aa gr e e m e nta t7;15

R 3 a t 6 - 7 . T he r e c or d une qui voc a l l y s how s tha tS i m s ( 1) w a s a w a r e of the c onf l i c t , a nd (2 ) k n ew o f h i s ri g h tt o o b t ai n co u n sel . S ee A l red , 1 4 4 F . 3 d at1 4 1 1 . A d d i t i o n al l y, notonl y di d S i m s r e a l i z e tha tthe c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s tc oul d a f

f e c thi s de f

e ns e , he spec i fi ca l l y w as t ol d, and si gn ed a w ai ver thatac kn ow l edged thathi s c ou nsel m i ghtbe unabl e t o a r gue r e l a t i ve c ul pabi l i tya ts e nt e nc i ng, the e xa c tc l a i m tha the is m a k in g o n ap p e a l. S e e id ; s e e a ls o R 1 - 1 3 . T h e v e ryte rm s o f h is w a iv e rb e lie h is a r g u m e n t th a t h e d id n o t k n o w in g lya n d in te llig e n tlyw a iv e ac h a lle n g e to h is a tto rn e y ’s a lle g e d c o n f

lic t in a r g u in g r o le e n h a n c e m e n ts . B e c au s e S im s w a iv e d h is r ig h t to c o n f lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l, w e n e e d n o t e v a lu a te th e a c tu a l o rp o te n tia l in e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

c o u n s e l c au s e d b yth e a lle g e d c o n f lic t. S ee R od ri gu ez , 98 2 F . 2d at47 7. N everthel es s, even as sum i ng thatS i m s’ s w ai ver w a s i ne f f e c t i ve , the r e i s no e vi de nc e tha ta n a c tua l c onf l i c ta r os e a ts e nt e nc i ng be c aus e T ow ns e nd: ( 1) obj e c t e d t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e r ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on r e ga r di ng the r ol e e nha nc e m e nt ; ( 2) a r gue d tha tS i m s w a s notthe l e a de rof the gr oup; a nd ( 3) obt a i ne d atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on i n the e nha nc e m e ntf r om the s e nt e nc i ng c ourt . S e e R 5 a t19- 21. I I I . CONCL US I ON W e grantthe go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss i n p artbecause the re cord16

show s thatS i m s kno w i ng l y and vo l un t ar i l y w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence , i ncl ud i ng any argum ent s r el at ed t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s e nh ance m entof hi s s ent ence base d o n h i s r ol e i n the offens e or bas ed on an un const i tut i on al enhancem entun der B o o k er . W e d en y th e g o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n to d ism iss in p ar t b ec au se S im s’s c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s ta r gum e ntw a s nots pe c i f i c a l l yc ove r e d byhi s appe a l w a i ve rbut a f f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on be c aus e the r e c or d s how s tha tS i m s know i ngl ya nd in te llig e n tlyw a iv e d h is r ig h t to c o n f lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T; A FFI R M ED I N PA R T.