FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 05- 13161 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 0 4 - 2 2 1 2 3 - CV- DLG 0 3 - 2 0 2 6 0 - CR - DLG R A F A E L D E J E S U S M E D I N A , 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 rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 14, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Whil ethesamec ouns e l whois repre sentingMe din a in t hisa pp e al repre sente d him in 1 his § 2255 moti on, he is not the same c ounsel as in the underlying criminal proce eding s. Medina also raised in his § 2255 motion, and the court ultimately reje cted, 2 constitutional challeng es to his sentencebased upon theSupreme Court’s de cision in Blake ly v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 159 L .Ed.2d 403 (2004), that the “statutory maxi mum” is “not the maxi mum sentencea judg e may impose after

findingadditional 2 R a f a e l D e J e s us M e di na , a f e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s thr ough c ouns e l the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o v ac at e, se tas i de, or corr ec tse nt ence , fi l ed pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255. M e di naf i l e d hi s § 2255 m ot i on on A ugus t23, 1 20 04 ; thu s, the A nt i t errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (A E D P A ), P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t a t . 1214 ( 1996) , gove rns thi s appe a l . M e di naa r gue s on appe a l tha the w a s de ni e d hi s r i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l unde rthe S ix th A m e n d m e n t w h e n h is tr ia l c o u n s e l f a ile d to f ile a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l ( “N O A ” ) . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. O n A ug ust23 , 20 04 , M edi na, w ho i s s ervi ng a 70-m on th sent ence i m po se d pu rs uantt o h i s gui l ty pl eafor c on spi ra cyt o i m po rt50 0 g ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) a n d 9 6 3 , f ile d th e in s ta n t § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . M edi na ar gu ed i n thi s § 22 55 m ot i on thathi s tri al coun se l , S cottS aul , prov i ded in ef fe ctiv e a ss istan ce o f c o u n se l b y f aili n g to file eith era N O A o n M ed in a’s be ha l f , ort o c ons ul tw i th M e di na dur i ng the t e n- da y pe r i od tha tM e di naha d f or fi l i n g an N O A fo l l o w i n g th e co u rt ’ s en try o f h i s j u d g m en to f co n v i ct i o n o n A u g u st 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t M e d in ah a d n o t c o n te n d e d in h is

2fac ts, but the max imum he may impose without any

additional finding s.” However, our review is lim ited to the claim of inef fec tive assistanceof counse l that is contained in the district court’ s c ertif ic ateof a pp e ala bil ity (“ CO A” ). Se eMurray

v. Unite d St ate s, 14 5 F .3 d 1 24 9, 12 51 (1 1th Cir. 1998) (holdingthat appellatereview is limi ted to the issues specif ied in the COA). 3 § 2255 m ot i on tha the ha d a s ke d S a ul t o f i l e a N O A . N e ve r the l e s s , the gove rnm e nt c onc e de d tha ta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng w oul d be ne c e s s a ry f orthe c our tt o r e s ol ve th is c la im . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge s ubs e que nt l y c onduc t e d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, dur i ng w hi ch M edi na and S aul w er e the on l y w i tness es t o t es t i fy . M edi na, w ho w as a 41- y e a r - ol d c i t i z e n of

the D om i ni c a n R e publ i c a nd ha d a n e l e ve nth- gr a de educat i on , t es t i fi ed thathe had l i ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es si nce 198 1. A ft er M e d in a ’s a rr e s t o n th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e , th e c o u r t ap p o in te d h im a p u b lic d e f e n d e r . M e di na ’ s br othe r , how e ve r , s ubs e que nt l y hi r e d S a ul t o r e pr e s e ntM e di na , a nd M edi na pl ea d g ui l ty. P ri or t o sent enci ng , M edi na and S aul m et , di sc usse d M e d in a ’s p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) , a n d f ile d th e iro b

je c tio n s to it, i nc l udi ng obj e c t i ng t o ( 1) a tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntof hi s of f e ns e l e ve l f

orthe pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a rm dur i ng the c om m i s s i on of a c r i m e , a nd ( 2) the de ni a l of “s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

.” M ed i n a fu rth er t est i fi ed th at , i m m ed i at el y aft er th e co u rto v erru l ed th ese o b j e c t i o n s a n d i mp o s e d s e n t e n c e , a n d w h i l e M e d i n aw a s s t i l l i n th e c o u r tr o o m, S a u l in f o rm e d M e d in a th a t th e y w o u ld ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e a n d th a t th e y w o u ld4

“s e e e a c h o th e r‘to m o rr o w .’” M e d in a , in tu rn , c o n f irm e d th a t h e w is h e d to ap p e a l. H o w e v e r , e v e n a f

te rM e d in a a n d h is f

a m ily r e p e a te d ly a tte m p te d to c o n ta c t S a u l, S a ul ne ve rm e tw i th M e di na orf i l e d a n appe a l . M e di nac ont e nde d tha t , w i thi n a f e w m onths of

s e nt e nc i ng, w he n M e di na ’ s br othe rf i na l l y w a s abl e t o c ont a c tS a ul by t el epho ne, S aul i nform ed M edi na’ s brother thatS aul had n otfi l ed an appeal b e c a u s e “it w a s n o t w o r th it.” M e d in aa ls o te s tif ie d th a t h e d id n o t a g r e e w ith h is s e n te n c e a n d th a t h e s till w is h e d to ap p e a l it. O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , M e d in ac o n c e d e d th a t h is b r o th e rh ir e d S a u l to prov i de hi m w i th adv i se re gardi ng hi s “ l egal op t i on s, w i th regard t o g oi ng t o tri al or pl ea di ng gu i l ty, ” a nd that , pri or t o sent enci ng , M edi na m etw i th S aul and w as ab l e t o co n t acth i m b y t el ep h o n e fro m th e fed eral d et en t i o n cen t er. M ed i n a al so a gr e e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t , a f t e ri m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , ve r i f i e d tha tM e di na unde r s t ood tha t( 1) he ha d a r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e ; ( 2) hi s N O A w oul d ha ve t o b e f i l ed, i f a tal l , w i thi n t en days of the i m po si t i on of se nt ence ; and (3) the court w o u ld ap p o in t h im ap p e lla te c o u n s e l if h e c o u ld n o lo n g e ra f

f o r d c o u n s e l. A d d i t i o n a l l y , M e d i n a c l a r i f i e d th a t , a l th o u g h h e a l w a y s h a d a tl e a s ts o me d if f ic u lty c o n ta c tin g S a u l, h e c o u ld c o n ta c t h is b r o th e r , a n d th a t n e ith e rh e n o rh is brother a tt em pt ed t o ret ai n al t ernat i ve appel l at e c ou nsel or i nform the di stri ctcourt aboutthe i rdi f

f i c ul ty c ont a c t i ng S a ul . I n e xpl a i ni ng w hy he di d noti nf orm theSa ul explaine d th at, alth ough Eng lis h w a s Me din a ’sse c on d la nguag e , M e din a

c ould 3 sp e ak c onvers atio nal Eng lis h. Me din a alsoagre e d th at, when th ec ourt a dv ise d him o f his a pp e llateri ghtsduringsentenc ing , h ehad a n interpreter p re sent. 5 c o u r t o f h is in ab ility to c o n ta c t S a u l, M e d in as ta te d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w h o w to r a i s e s uc h a c om pl a i nt . M or e ove r , on r e di r e c t - e xa m i na t i on, he s t a t e d tha t( 1) he h a d b e e n d e ta in e d in a f e d e r a l d e te n tio n c e n te rs in c e h is o r ig in a l a rr e s t; ( 2 ) th e c a lls h e h ad m ad e t o h i s co u n sel fro m th i s cen t er h ad b een p ai d , i n st ead o f co l l ectcal l s; a n d ( 3 ) h e h a d n o p r io re x p e r ie n c e s w ith f ilin g ap p e a ls . M e d in a ’s c o u n s e l f o rh is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a ls o in tr o d u c e d a c o p y o f S a u l’s n o tic e o f

s u b s titu tio n o f

c o u n s e l, w hi ch di d n otspec i fythatthe part i es had agreed thathi s r epre se nt at i on w as l i m i t ed fo r tri al p u rp o ses. S aul nextt es t i fi ed, st at i ng thathe w as a s ol o p ra ct i t i on er , had b ee n pr a c t i c i ng s i nc e 1987, a nd pr i m a r i l y ha ndl e d c r i m i na l - tr i a l w ork. I n A pr i l 2003, M e d in a ’s b r o th e rh ir e d S a u l to r e p r e s e n t M e d in ain th e in s ta n t c a s e . P r io rto M edi na’ s pl eaof gu i l ty, S aul m etw i th h i m on a w ee kl y bas i s, and M edi na never c o m p la in e d to h im th a t h e h a d p r o b le m s c o n ta c tin g h im . S a u l a ls o s ta te d th a t, 3 a lth o u g h h e d id n o t h a v e h is s ta n d a r d r e ta in e rf o rm w ith h im a t th e h e a r in g , ( 1 ) th is f orm pr ovi de d tha the ne ve rha ndl e d appe a l s orothe rpos t - c onvi c t i on m a tt e r s , a nd ( 2 ) h e w o u ld h a v e e x p la in e d th is f o rm to M e d in a ’s b r o th e rw h e n h e w a s r e ta in e d .6

W he n the gove rnm e nta s ke d S a ul w he the rhe s poke w i th M e di naf ol l ow i ng s e nt e nc i ng, S a ul r e pl i e d tha the c oul d notr e m e m be r . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, S a ul a l s o c onc e de d tha the ne i the rw i thdr e w a s c ouns e l of r e c or d, norha d M e di nas i gn a w ai ver of hi s r i gh tt o app ea l . S aul , ho w ever , t es t i fi ed thathe re m em bere d r e c e iv in g p h o n e c a lls f

r o m M e d in a ’s f

a m ily “a ll th e tim e ” a n d th a t th is f a m ily n e v e rc o m p la in e d ab o u t h a v in g tr o u b le r e a c h in g h im . S a u l a ls o s ta te d th a t h e d id notr e m e m be ri f

M e di na e ve re xpr e s s e d t o hi m tha the w i s he d t o appe a l , buttha the w as sure thatM edi na w ou l d h ave w ant ed t o tryt o o bt ai n the l ow es tse nt ence p o s s ib le . A d d itio n a lly , S a u l te s tif ie d th a t: ( 1 ) h e d id n o t in f o rm e ith e rM e d in ao rh is fa m i l y thathe w ou l d fi l e aN O A on M edi na’ s behal f; (2) i f he a nd M edi na had di s c us s e d a n appe a l , he w oul d ha ve a dvi s e d M e di nat o hi r e appe l l a t e c ouns e l a nd f i l e a N O A w i thi n t e n da y s ; a nd ( 3) M e di na ’ s br othe rw a s a l w a y s a w a r e tha tS a ul di d n othand l e app ea l s. W hen q uest i on ed spec i fi ca l l y w hether he norm al l y f i l es N O A s, S aul st at ed thathe fi l es them af t ertri al s a nd thathe had b ee n fi l i ng them dur i ng the s i x m onths pr i ort o thi s i ns t a nte vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng t o pr e s e rve a ny B l a ke l y c l a i m s , buttha the , othe rw i s e , norm a l l y onl y i nf orm s c l i e nt s of

hi s opi ni on of the i rc ha nc e s on appe a l , the c os tof a n appe a l , a nd the na m e s of a tt orne y s w ho h an d le ap p ea ls. A t so m e p o in t p o st-s en ten cin g , S au l ex p lain ed to M ed in a’s7

b ro th er th ath e d i d n o tth i n k M ed i n a w o u l d b e su ccessfu l o n ap p eal . S au l al so e x p la in e d th a t, a lth o u g h h e h a s a “h ig h v o lu m e p r a c tic e ” a n d is f r e q u e n tly in c o u r t, he ha s f ourphone l i ne s a nd a dvi s e s c l i e nt s t o c a l l hi m di r e c t l y vi ac e l l ul a rphone a f te r8 :0 0 p .m . B as ed on thi s t es t i m on y, M edi na’ s c ou nsel ar gu ed thatthe go vernm enthad notof f e r e d e vi de nc e r e butt i ng M e di na ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the i nf orm e d S a ul im m e d ia te ly a f

te rs e n te n c in g th a t h e w is h e d to ap p e a l a n d th a t S a u l s u b s e q u e n tly ha d nots poke n w i th hi m . H e s t a t e d tha t , a l though S a ul ha d t e s t i f i e d tha the w e nt ov erhi s r et ai ner a gree m entw i th M edi na’ s brother, the re cord di d n otre fl ec tthat M e di na , hi m s e l f

, e ve rs a w thi s a gr e e m e nt . H e a l s o c ont e nde d tha t , w he the rornot M e di na ’ s appe a l ha d m e r i t , he w i s he d t o appe a l , a nd S a ul e i the rha d a n obl i ga t i on to f ile a N O A o n h is b e h a lf o rm o v e th e c o u r t f

o rle a v e to w ith d r a w h is r e p r e s e n ta tio n . A s r e lie f , M e d in a ’s c o u n s e l r e q u e s te d th a t th e c o u r t v a c a te M e d in a ’s s e n te n c e a n d th e n r e im p o s e it, s o th a t M e d in ac o u ld f ile a tim e ly N O A . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha t , a l though S a ul ha d t e s t i f i e d tha the c oul d not r e m e m be ri f

he ha d a c onve r s a t i on w i th M e di napos t - s e nt e nc i ng, thi s l a c k of m e m ory l i ke l y w a s a ttr i but abl e t o ( 1) the f a c ttha tnothi ng unus ua l ha d oc c urr e d, a nd ( 2) S a ul norm a l l y a dvi s e d c l i e nt s tha the doe s notha ndl e appe a l s . T he g o v er n m en t also ar g u ed th at th e c o u rt sh o u ldco n sid erin w eig h in g M ed in a’s8

c r e d i b i l i ty th a th e h a d n o ts o u g h tt o f i l e a b e l a t e d ap p e a l u n t i l a s i g n i f i c a n tt i me p a s s e d a n d a f

te rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a d d e c id e d B la k e ly . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e c o m m e n d e d th a t M e d in a ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n b e d e n ie d . I n doi ng s o, the m a gi s tr a t e a c know l e dge d tha tM e di naw a s a r gui ng i n s uppor tof hi s i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c l a i m tha the ( 1) a dvi s e d S a ul i m m e di a t e l y f ol l ow i ng s e n te n c in g th a t h e w is h e d to ap p e a l, ( 2 ) s u b s e q u e n tly w a s u n ab le to c o n ta c t S a u l, and (3) w i shed l ea ve fr om the courtt o fi l e abel at ed appeal . T he m agi stra t e, ho w ever , det erm i ned thatM edi na’ s c l ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l w as n o t m e r ito r io u s b e c a u s e h e w a s a w a r e o f h is r ig h t to ap p e a l a n d c h o s e n o t to d o s o . T he m agi stra t e f

urther e xp l ai ned thatnei ther party di sput ed that , at se nt enci ng , (1) the di stri ctcourtadvi se d M edi na of hi s r i gh tt o app ea l , (2) the court e xpl a i ne d tha ta N O A ha d t o be f i l e d, i f a ta l l , w i thi n t e n da y s of the e ntry of

the ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n , a n d ( 3 ) M e d in aa c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th is advi ce . T he m agi stra t e di sc usse d that , al tho ug h M edi na kn ew thathe on l y had t en days t o fi l e aN O A and eas i l y c ou l d h ave c on t ac t ed hi s brother, he nei ther a sked hi s br othe rt o hi r e c ouns e l f ora n appe a l , norc om pl a i ne d t o the di s tr i c tc our tabout hi s i nabi l i ty t o con t ac tS aul . M oreover, the m agi stra t e f ou nd “ hi gh l y c re di bl e” S au l ’ s t est i m o n y th at : (1 ) h e n ev er h an d l es ap p eal s o r p o st -co n v i ct i o n p ro ced u res; ( 2) he m a de thi s pr a c t i c e c l e a rt o M e di na ; ( 3) he ne ve rpr om i s e d t o f i l e a N O A on9

M edi na’ s behal f; (4) he e xp l ai ned t o M edi na’ s brother thathe bel i eved any appeal had l i tt l e, i f a ny, m er i t ; (5) he a l w ay s c ou l d b e r ea ched di re ct l y by t el epho ne af t er 8: 00 p. m . ; a nd ( 6) a l though he r e c e i ve d f r e que ntc a l l s f

r om M e di na ’ s f

a m i l y , he d id n o t r e m e m b e rr e c e iv in g p o s t- s e n te n c in g c a lls f r o m M e d in a . B a s e d o n th is e v id e n c e , th e m a g is tr a te d e te rm in e d th a t M e d in aw a s f u lly a w a r e o f h is r ig h t to ap p e a l, a lo n g w ith th e f a c t th a t aN O A h a d to b e f ile d w ith in t en days fr om the i m po si t i on of se nt ence . T he m agi stra t e a l so det erm i ned that M edi na (1) w as aw ar e of the fa ctthathi s c ou nsel di d n othand l e app ea l s, (2) had th e o p p o r tu n ity to c o n ta c t h is b r o th e r , w h o m h e e a s ily c o u ld h a v e r e a c h e d , to r e ta in appe l l a t e c ouns e l , i f

he trul y ha d w i s he d t o t i m e l y appe a l hi s s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue s , a nd ( 3 ) o n ly e x p r e s s e d a d e s ir e to ap p e a l a f te rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t is s u e d its d e c is io n in B la k e ly . T h e m a g is tr a te , th u s , c o n c lu d e d th a t M e d in ac o u ld h a v e , a n d s h o u ld ha ve , obt a i ne d appe l l a t e c ouns e l i f he ha d w i s he d t o t i m e l y appe a l a nd tha the c o u ld n o t n o w c la im 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. In w ri tt en obj ec t i on s t o thi s r eport , M edi na ar gu ed thatthe re cord ref l ec t ed thathe re qu es t ed thathi s c ou nsel appeal hi s s ent ence . M edi na al so cont ended that w e have det erm i ned that , w hen a cri m i nal defe nd antre qu es t s thathi s tri al coun se l f i l e a N O A on hi s be ha l f , the f a i l ur e of c ouns e l t o c om pl y c ons t i tut e s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , w he the rornotthe de f e nda nts how s tha the w oul d ha ve10

succ ee ded o n app ea l . T hu s, M edi na concl ud ed that , even i f he onl y had re t ai ned S a ul t o ha ndl e hi s tr i a l pr oc e e di ngs , S a ul ha d aduty t o f i l e aN O A t o pr e s e rve M e d in a ’s r ig h t to ap p e a l. O n o rd er o f th e co u rt , th e g o v ern m en tfi l ed a resp o n se t o th ese o b j ect i o n s, expl ai ni ng that , al tho ug h M edi na t es t i fi ed thathe had adv i se d S aul thathe w i shed to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e , th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n d e n y in g h is i neff ec t i veness cl ai m w as base d o n the m agi stra t e’ s f i nd i ng thatthi s t es t i m on y w as no tcr edi bl e. T he go vernm entcont ended thatthi s c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng w as supp ort ed by ( 1) the f

a c ttha tM e di na di d notr a i s e thi s i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c l a i m a nd s e e k the oppor tuni ty t o f

i l e a be l a t e d appe a l unt i l a l m os tt e n m onths a f t e rs e nt e nc i ng a nd af ter th e S u p re m e C o u rt issu ed it s d ec isio n in B lak ely, an d (2 ) th e m ag istrate’s f i ndi ng a s “ hi ghl y c r e di bl e ” S a ul ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the ne ve rdoe s appe l l a t e w ork a nd M e di na ne ve ra s ke d hi m t o f i l e a N O A . T he gove rnm e nt , thus , c onc l ude d tha tour c a s e l a w r e qui r i ng de f

e ns e c ouns e l t o f

i l e a N O A w he n r e que s t e d by the de f e nda nt w a s i nappl i c abl e . M or e ove r , the gove rnm e ntc ont e nde d tha t , a l though the S u p r e m e C o u r t id e n tif

ie d in R o e v . F lo r e s - O r te g a , 5 2 8 U .S . 4 7 0 , 4 8 0 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 3 6 , 1 4 5 L .E d .2 d 9 8 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h e r e in c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to fi l e aN O A w i l l am ou ntt o i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , re gardl es s of w hether11

a r e que s tt o do s o w a s m a de , none of the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s t e d i n the i ns t a nt ca se . A f t e rc ons i de r i ng the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on a nd c onduc t i ng ade no vo re vi ew , the courtsum m ar i l y a do pt ed thi s r ec om m endat i on and d eni ed M e d in a ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . H o w e v e r , o n M e d in a ’s m o tio n , th e m a g is tr a te re com m ended thatthe courtgranta C O A on the sol e c l ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l. T h e c o u r t, in tu rn , a d o p te d th is r e c o m m e n d a tio n . A s di s c us s e d above , M e di na a r gue s on appe a l tha tS a ul pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l by f

a i l i ng t o f

i l e a N O A on M e di na ’ s be ha l f a f t e rM e di na c o m m u n ic a te d to S a u l h is d e s ir e to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e . M e d in aa lte rn a tiv e ly ar g u es th at, ev en if w e w er e to co n clu d e th at h e d idn o t m ak e th is re q u es t, S au l’ s perf orm ance w as defi ci entbecause are as on abl e c ou nsel w ou l d h ave c on sul t ed w ith h is c lie n t ab o u t th is r ig h t to ap p e a l w h e n it w a s c le a rth a t h is c lie n t w is h e d to ap p eal . M ed i n a co n t en d s th atth i s d efi ci en tp erfo rm an ce p rej u d i ced h i m b ecau se th e r e c o r d r e f

le c ts th a t, b u t f

o rth is d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e , h e w o u ld h a v e tim e ly appe a l e d. F i na l l y , M e di na a s s e r t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t , i n a dopt i ng the m a g is tr a te ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n , e rr o n e o u s ly r e lie d o n ( 1 ) th e f a c t th a t M e d in ad id no tas k h i s f

am i l y t o ret ai n ano ther a tt orney t o fi l e the N O A , and (2) i t s m i st aken d e te rm in a tio n th a t M e d in a k n e w th a t S a u l d id n o t h a n d le ap p e a ls .12

W hen revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a § 22 55 m ot i on , w e r evi ew qu es t i on s of l aw de no vo and fi nd i ng s of f ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. V ar el a v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 4 0 0 F .3 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 7 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 3 1 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) .

“ W h eth er a crim i n al d efen d an th as received effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel i s a m i xed q uest i on of fa ctand l aw . ” M i nceyv. H ea d, 20 6 F . 3d 11 06 , 11 42 (11th C i r. 2000) . W e r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr orque s t i ons of f a c tunde r l y i ng the c l a i m a nd re vi ew s de nov o the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on on the ul t i m at e i ss ue of “ w hether c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e pa s s e d c ons t i tut i ona l m us t e r . ” I d. I n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 (198 4), the S up re m e C ou rtes t abl i shed a tw o-pron g t es tfor dec i di ng w hether a d efen d an th as received i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel . T h e d efen d an tm u st es t abl i sh that(1) hi s a tt orney’ s per form ance fa i l ed t o m ee t“ an ob j ec t i ve st andard o f r e a s o n ab le n e s s ,” id . a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 4 ; a n d ( 2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h ts w e r e pr e j udi c e d a s a r e s ul tof

hi s a tt orne y ’ s s ubs t a nda r d pe r f orm a nc e , i d. a t693, 104 S . C t . a t2067. M o r e o v e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t s u b s e q u e n tly d e te rm in e d th a t th is tw o - p a r t te s t ap p lie s to c la im s — s u c h a s h e r e — th a t ad e f e n d a n t lo s t h is r ig h t to appe a l be c a us e of

hi s a tt orne y ’ s f

a i l ur e t o f

i l e a n appe a l on hi s be ha l f . R oe , 528 U . S . a t476- 77, 120 S . C t . a t1034.13

A s a pr e l i m i na ry m a tt e r , a nd a s both pa r t i e s c onc e de , w e ha ve l ong he l d, a nd the S up re m e C ou rtdet erm i ned i n R oe, thatan att orney’ s f ai l ure t o fi l e a n app ea l af t era def endantre qu es t s thathe or she do so n orm al l y s ho ul d res ul ti n the court gr a nt i ng hi m a n out - of

- t i m e appe a l , e ve n abs e ntthe de f e nda nts how i ng tha the or she w ou l d h ave had any vi abl e groun ds for app ea l . S ee i d. at47 7, 12 0 S . C t . at 10 35 ; se e a l so M art i n v . U ni t ed S t at es , 81 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 84 (11th C i r. 19 96 ). In G o m e z - D ia z v . U n ite d S ta te s , N o . 0 4 - 1 1 1 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . D e c . 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) , w e r e c e n tly e x a m in e d a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f a c la im o f

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, w hi ch w as base d o n G om ez -D i az ’ s c on t ent i on thathi s app oi nt ed coun se l had f a i l e d t o f i l e a N O A a s r e que s t e d. S e e i d. , m a nus c r i ptop. a t3. W e de t e rm i ne d, a m o n g o th e rth in g s , th a t, d e s p ite G o m e z - D ia z ’s w a iv e ro f s o m e o f h is ap p e lla te ri gh t s, re m and w as nece ss ary f or the di stri ctcourtt o con du ctan evi dent i ary h e a r in g a n d d e te rm in e w h e th e rG o m e z - D ia z ’s in itia l s ta te m e n t o f h is d e s ir e to ap p e a l w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to tr ig g e rh is c o u n s e l’s p e rs e d u ty to ap p e a l. S e e id . a t 9 . W e a l so expl ai ned that , i f, on re m and, the di stri ctcourtfoun d ei ther thatG om ez D ia z ’s a tto rn e y h a d a c te d c o n tr a ry to h is c lie n t’s w is h e s o rf a ile d to d e te rm in e h is c lie n t’s w is h e s , th e c o u r t s h o u ld p r e s u m e p r e ju d ic e a n d g r a n t G o m e z - D ia z a n o u to f - tim e ap p e a l. S e e id . a t 1 0 .14

E xa m i ni ng the r e c or d he r e , M e di nat e s t i f i e d dur i ng the e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng tha the e xpr e s s e d t o S a ul hi s de s i r e t o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e . O n the othe rha nd, a lth o u g h S a u l te s tif

ie d th a t d id n o t r e m e m b e rif h e h a d a n y c o n v e r s a tio n s w ith M edi na po st -s ent enci ng , S aul confi rm ed thathe never handle s app ea l s or other po st -c on vi ct i on m att er s a nd that , pri or t o the pastsi x m on ths, he on l y had i nform ed cl i ent s w ho pl ea d g ui l ty of hi s opi ni on of thei r c hances on appeal , the costof an ap p e a l, a n d th e n a m e s o f a tto rn e y s w h o h a n d le ap p e a ls . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, in adop t i ng the m agi stra t e’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s, and i n atl ea sti m pl i ci t l y f i nd i ng m ore c r e d ib le S a u l’s te s tim o n y , d e te rm in e d th a t M e d in ao n ly h a d e x p r e s s e d a d e s ir e to appe a l a f t e rthe S upr e m e C our ti s s ue d i t s de c i s i on i n B l a ke l y . M or e ove r , w e ha ve expl ai ned thatthe det erm i nat i on of the cr edi bi l i ty of at es t i fy i ng att orney duri ng an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on a c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i s “ w i thi n the pr ovi nc e of

the di s tr i c tc our t , w hi c h ha d the oppor tuni ty t o obs e rve a nd s tudy the w i tne s s . ” S e e C a rrv. S c hof i e l d, 364 F . 3d 1246, 1264- 65 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 815 ( 2004) . T hus , unl i ke the f a c t s i n G om e z - D i a z , the c our ti n the in s ta n t c a s e , a f

te rc o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , d id n o t f in d c r e d ib le M e di na ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the a s ke d S a ul t o f i l e a N O A on hi s be ha l f . T hus concl ud i ng thatthe per s e duty t o app ea l ou t l i ned i n R oe, M art i n, and G om ez -D i az w as no tappl i cabl e.15

I n a d d itio n to c o n c lu d in g th a t th e tw o - p a r t S tr ic k la n d te s t ap p lie s to a c la im th a t ad e f

e n d a n t lo s t h is r ig h t to ap p e a l b e c a u s e o f 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, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in R o e e x p la in e d th a t, w h e r e a d e f e n d a n t n e ith e rin s tru c ts c ouns e l t o f

i l e a n appe a l , nora s ks tha ta n appe a l notbe t a ke n, the r e l e va ntque s t i on in d e te rm in in g w h e th e rc o u n s e l h a s p e r f o rm e d d e f

ic ie n tly b y n o t f

ilin g a N O A is

“ w he the rc ouns e l i n f

a c tc ons ul t e d w i th the de f e nda ntabouta n appe a l . ” R oe , 528 U . S . at47 8, 12 0 S . C t . at10 35 . T he S up re m e C ou rtexpl ai ned that , i f c ou nsel has n o t co n su lt ed w ith th e d ef en d an t, th e c o u rt m u st d eter m in e “w h eth erco u n se l’ s f a ilu r e to c o n s u lt w ith th e d e f e n d a n t its e lf

c o n s titu te s d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e .” I d . In m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on , the R oe C ou rtre j ec t ed a “ bri gh t -l i ne rul e that c ouns e l m us ta l w a y s c ons ul tw i th the de f e nda ntr e ga r di ng a n appe a l , ” a nd, i ns t e a d, i n stru ct ed as fo l l o w s: [ C ] ouns e l ha s a c ons t i tut i ona l l y i m pos e d duty t o c ons ul tw i th the defe nd antabou tan appeal w hen there i s r ea son t o thi nk ei ther ( 1) that a r at i on al defe nd antw ou l d w antt o app ea l (f or exam pl e, because there ar e non fr i vo l ou s groun ds for app ea l ), or (2) thatthi s part i cul ar defe nd antre as on abl y dem on stra t ed t o cou nsel thathe w as i nt er es t ed in ap p e a lin g . I n m a k in g th is d e te rm in a tio n , c o u r ts m u s t ta k e in to a c c o u n t a ll th e in f

o rm a tio n c o u n s e l k n e w o rs h o u ld h a v e k n o w n . I d . a t 4 8 0 , 1 2 0 S .C t. a t 1 0 3 6 . In addres si ng the prej ud i ce -prong of the S tri ckl and t es t , the R oe C ou rt ex p l ai n ed th at , “ t o sh o w p rej u d i ce i n th ese ci rcu m st an ces, a d efen d an tm u st16

de m ons tr a t e tha tthe r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orc ouns e l ’ s de f

i c i e nt fa i l ure t o con sul tw i th h i m abou tan appeal , he w ou l d h ave t i m el y app ea l ed. Id. at 48 4, 12 0 S . C t . at10 38 -39. In sa t i sf yi ng thi s burden o f proof, the defendantneed no t“ spec i fythe po i nt s he w ou l d rai se w er e hi s r i gh tt o app ea l re i nst at ed. ” I d. at 486, 120 S . C t . a t1039- 40. O n the othe rha nd, a l though the de f e nda ntm a y pr ove defi ci entperf

orm ance by show i ng thathe dem on stra t ed t o cou nsel hi s i nt er es ti n an appeal , he ca nn otre l y on thi s e vi dence s ol el y t o est abl i sh that , “ had [he] re ce i ved r e a s o n ab le a d v ic e f

r o m c o u n s e l ab o u t th e ap p e a l, h e w o u ld h a v e in s tru c te d h is c o u n s e l to f

ile a n ap p e a l.” I d . a t 4 8 6 , 1 2 0 S .C t. a t 1 0 3 9 . M e di na i s c i t i ng, a s e vi de nc e of de f i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e , t o hi s ow n t e s t i m ony tha the ha d ( 1) e xpr e s s e d di s s a t i s f a c t i on abouthi s s e nt e nc e t o hi s c ouns e l a nd ( 2 ) p r e s e rv e d o b

je c tio n s to s e n te n c in g ru lin g s th a t h e c la im e d h e w is h e d to chal l enge on appeal . M oreover, he ar gu es , S aul conceded thathe w as sure that M e di na w oul d ha ve w a nt e d t o s e e k the l ow e s tpos s i bl e s e nt e nc e on appe a l . O n the other hand, the courtno t ed S aul ’ s t es t i m on y thatpo st -s ent enci ng he had i nform ed M e d in a ’s b r o th e rth a t h e d id n o t th in k th e r e w e r e a n y is s u e s th a t h a d m e r it. R e g a r d le s s , w e n e e d n o t d e te rm in e w h e th e rS a u l’s f a ilu r e to c o n s u lt w ith M ed i n a co n st i tu t ed d efi ci en tp erfo rm an ce b ecau se M ed i n a h as fai l ed t o est ab l i sh the pr e j udi c e - pr ong i n R oe , tha ti s , tha tthe r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , but17

f orc ouns e l ’ s de f

i c i e ntf a i l ur e t o c ons ul tw i th hi m abouta n appe a l , he w oul d ha ve t i m e l y appe a l e d. S e e R oe , 528 U . S . a t484, 120 S . C t . a t1038- 39. A l though M edi na has now t es t i fi ed thathe w i shed t o t i m el y app ea l hi s s ent ence and h as ci t ed t o i s s ue s tha the be l i e ve s w oul d ha ve be e n m e r i t or i ous , ora tl e a s ta r guabl e , on ap p e a l, h e h a s c o n c e d e d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a d v ic e th a t h e h a d to fi l e an ap p eal , i f atal l , w i th i n t en d ays o f th e i m p o si t i o n o f sen t en ce. M ed i n a al so agre ed thatthe courti nform ed hi m that , i f he c ou l d n otaf ford coun se l , the court w o u ld ap p o in t h im ap p e lla te c o u n s e l. F u r th e rm o r e , w h e th e ro rn o t M e d in ah a d tr o u b le c o n ta c tin g S a u l p o s ts e n te n c in g , h e h a s c o n c e d e d th a t h e a lw a y s c o u ld c o n ta c t h is b r o th e ra n d f a ile d to expl ai n w hy he coul d n othave as ked h i s brother e i ther t o h i re al t ernat i ve coun se l ornot i f y the c ourtof

hi s de s i r e t o appe a l . I nde e d, M e di nadi d notf i l e the i ns t a nt § 2 25 5 m ot i on , ar gu i ng i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l and see ki ng t o fi l e a bel at ed di re ctappeal , un t i l A ug ust23 , 20 04 , m ore than a ye araf t erthe court e nt e r e d hi s j udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on on A ugus t22, 2003. A ddi t i ona l l y , a s the di stri ctcourtob se rved, M edi na’ s f i l i ng of thi s § 22 55 m ot i on occurre d o nl y a ft er th e S u p r e m e C o u r t is s u e d its d e c is io n in B la k e ly , w h ic h M e d in aa ls o r e lie d u p o n in s e e ki ng § 2255 r e l i e f

, a nd w hi c h w e ha ve c onc l ude d i s notappl i c abl e t o c a s e s on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . S e e V a r e l a , 400 F . 3d a t866- 68. T hus , a f t e re xa m i ni ng18

M e d in a ’s in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s c la im in lig h t o f a ll o f th e e v id e n c e , h e h a s f

a ile d to e s t abl i s h pr e

j udi c e . S e e S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t695, 104 S . C t . a t2069 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha ta c our the a r i ng a n i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c l a i m m us tc ons i de rthe t ot a l i ty of the e v id e n c e ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng M e d in a ’s c la im o f

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

tr ia l c o u n s e l. W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f irm . AF F I RME D.