FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ULY 31, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 6- 15 82 3
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 13 7 C V-T-2 7- TGW W ILLIAM BATTLE, JR., Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (J ul y 31 , 20 09 )
Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d WALTE R, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e.

Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District J udg e for the Western District o f

* L ouisiana, sitting by

designation.PER CURI AM:

W il li am Bat tl e, Jr ., a pr o s e Flo rid a p ris on er s erv in g aten -y ear s en te nc e pu rs ua ntto a gu il ty ple a to po ss es si on of c oc ai ne an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a
co nv ic te d fe lo n, o n acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”), ap pe al s t he di st ric t
co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on . He con te nd s t ha t h is sen te nc e vi ol at ed App re nd i v. Ne w Jer se y , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 34 8 (2 00 0) , and Bla kel y v. W as hi ng to n , 54 2 U.S. 2 96 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 53 1 (2 00 4) . W e v acat e an d
rem an d. I. BACKG ROUND Bat tl e was co nv ic te d i n F eb ru ary 20 04 of p os se ss io n o f co cai ne an d po ss es si on of afir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on in Flo rid a st at e co urt. In Ju ne 20 06 , Bat tl e fi le d afed eral habe as pe ti ti on pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. He ass ert ed 1 th athi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e were u nc on st itut io na l u nd er Bla kel y. Sp eci fic al ly, Bat tl e arg ue d tha t h is co nv ic ti on , aft er a g ui lt y pl ea, v io la te d Bla kel

y be cau se he ha d n otad m it te d t o b ei ng inactua l o r co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a fir earm , whi chim

pr op erl y en ha nc edhi s o ffen se in vi ol at io n o f hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o t ria l b y jury. Bat tl e fu rth er ar gu edth at , bas edon th is no nBe cause Battle filed his petition afte r the eff ective date of the Antiterror ism and Effe ctive 1 Death Penalty

Act of 1996 ( “AED PA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the pr ovisions of that act apply
. 2jury find in g, t o wh ic h h e d idno t ad m it , th e st at e co urt i nc reas edhi s m ax im um pe na lty invi ol at io n o f App re ndi . Batt le co nc lu de d tha t h is co nv ic ti on vi ol at ed App re nd i an d Bla kel

ybe cau se th e fi nd in g o f whe th er h e p os se ss eda fi rearm ch an ge d h is off

en se fro m a m is de m ean or

to a fel on y . The di stric t co urt su a s

po nt e di sm is se d B at tl e’s pe ti ti on . The co urt de te rm in edth atBat tl e h adso ug htrel ie f on ly on t he is su e o f whe th er h is
co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e were c on st itut io na l u nd er Bla kel y . The d is tri ctco urt
no te d t ha t Ba tt le ’s con vi ct io n h adbe co m e fi na l o n M arch 10 , 20 04 . The co urt
reco gn iz edth at Bla kel

yreaf firm edth e h ol di ng in App re nd ith at“ an y factth at in crea se s t he pe na lt y

for a cri m e b ey on d t he pre sc rib edst atut ory m ax im um m us t be subm it te d t o ajury, an d p ro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” App re nd i , 53 0 U.S. at 4 90 , 12 0 S . Ct. at23 62 -6 3. Th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t, b ecau se Bla kel ydi d
no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y

on co ll at eral rev ie w Bat tl e h adfai le d t o p res en t a
co gn iz ab le cla im

un de r § 2 25 4 a ndde ni edhi s cl ai m . Bat tl e m ov edforreh eari ng an d a rg ue d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt h adfai le d t o
co ns id er h is App re ndicla im . Whi le Bat tl e’s co nv ic ti on was fi na l i n 2 00 4, t he Supr em e Co urt h adde ci de d App re nd iin 20 00 . There fo re, h e arg ue d t ha t App re nd i di d n otha ve th e sa m e retro act iv it y im pl ic at io ns as Bla kel

y .

3The di stric t co urt d en ie d B at tl e’s m ot io n fo r reh eari ng . The co urt i ni ti al ly

co ns tru edBat tl e’s m ot io n a s a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, fi le d p ur su an t t o Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9( e), b ecau se Bat tl e fi le d h is m ot io n wi th in ten da y s o f th e d is m is sa l o rd er. The co urt d is m is se d B at tl e’s habe as pe ti ti on as t im eba rredun de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) . The co urt d et erm in edth atBat tl e h adfai le d t o arg ue th atth ere h adbe en anin te rv en in g c ha ng e in co nt ro ll in g l aw orth atitwas im pe rat iv e th atth e jud gm en t b e am en de d t o c orrecta cl ear e rro r rel at in g t o t he ti m el in es s o f Bat tl e’s pe ti ti on . The co urt fu rth er co nc lu de d tha t Ba tt le ha d fa il ed to pre se ntco nv in ci ng fact s o r law con cern in g wh y itsh ou ldrev ers e it s de te rm in at io n t ha t Ba tt le ’s pet it io n was ti m e-b arre d. Bat tl e fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt co ns tru edas a n ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA, an d d en ie d i t. We gran te d aCOA on two is su es : Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g app el la nt ’s m ot io n fo r reh eari ng , con st ru edas ato ll in g F ed . R. Civ . P. 59 (e) m ot io n, b as ed on a co nc lu si on th atitha d d is m is se d app el la nt ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 a s ti m e-b arre d wh en th e d is tri ctco urt ac tu al ly den ie d t he § 2 25 4 p et it io n ba se d o n aret ro act iv ity

an al y si s. Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt fa il edto ad dr es s ap pe ll an t’s ar gu m en t i n hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on th athi s s en te nc e was un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r App re ndi v. Ne w Jer se y , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 34 8, 1 47 L. Ed. 2 d 4 35 (20 00 ), in vi ol at io n o f Cl is by v. Jo ne s , 96 0 F .2d92 5, 9 36 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2)
. W e n ow ad dr es s b ot h i ss ue s. 4II . DISCUSSI ON

A. Deni al of the Mo ti on forReh eari ng
Bat tl e arg ue s t ha t h is pe ti ti on was n otti m e-b arre d a ndth athe ti m el y fil ed hi s p et it io n a t t he co nc lu si on of h is st at e h ab eas pro ceed in gs . Batt le ass ert s t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt erredby find in g t ha t h is pe ti ti on was t im e-b arre d b ecau se th e
co urt h addi sm is se d i t o n re tro act iv ity gro un ds
. The di stric t co urt erredby den y in g B at tl e’s co ns tru edRu le 59 (e) m ot io n ba se d o n a n e rro ne ou s fi nd in g t ha t i t h addi sm is se d B at tl e’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n a s ti m e-b arre d a ndth atBat tl e h adno t d em on st rat edth atsu chanan al y si s was in co rrec t. The co urt ac tu al ly den ie d B at tl e’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n b as edon it s
co nc lu si on th at Bla kel

ydi d n otap pl y

ret ro act iv el y

to hi s co nv ic ti on s an d
se nt en ces an d n otbe cau se Bat tl e’s pe ti ti on was u nt im el y . Con se qu en tl y , th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g t he co ns tru edRu le 59 (e) m ot io n i na ccu rat el y st at ed th e rea so ns forit s d en ia l o f th e u nd erl y in g o rd er d is m is si ng th e § 22 54 pe ti ti on . Add it io na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t h av e al l o f th e in fo rm at io n b efo re i t to de te rm in e whe th er t he pe ti ti on was t im el y . Batt le ’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n d idno t sp eci fy th e d at es th athi s s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n was fil edor d en ie d, an d h e di d n otatt ach th e rel ev an t s ta te do cu m en ts as e xh ib it s. Be cau se th is was a su a

5sp on te di sm is sa l, t he st at e h adno t re sp on de d o r fi le d t he reco rdof t he st at e

pr oc eed in gs . Sig ni fic an tl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t g iv e Bat tl e th e o pp ortu ni ty to
res po ndto th e li m it at io ns pe rio ds or t o o fferanequi tabl e to ll in g a rg um en t. We rejectth e st at e’s su gg es ti on th atwe sh ou ldaffi rm onth e al te rn at e g ro un d o f ret ro act iv it y , bec au se th e ret ro act iv it y an al y si s i s fl awed . Accor di ng ly, we va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g B at tl e’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. B. Unco ns ti tu ti on al Argu m en ts Rel at in g t o S en te nc e Bat tl e arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt v io la te d Cl is byv. Jo nes , 96 0 F .2d92 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (en banc ), be cau se th e co urt fa il edto co ns id er h is App re nd i cl ai m . He clai m s t ha t, co ns tru in g h is pe ti ti on li be ral ly, he pre se rv edhi s App re nd i arg um en t, an d t he di stric t co urt s ho ul d h av e ad dr es se d i t u nd er Cl is by
. W e rev ie w an app eal fro m a di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a p et it io n fo r writof habe as co rp us de no vo . Nel so n v . Sch of

eld , 37 1 F .3d76 8, 7 69 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (p er cu ria m ). In Cl is by , we exp res se d c on cern ov er the “ gr owi ng nu m be r of cas es in whi chwe are fo rcedto rem an d fo r co ns id erat io n o f is su es th e d is tri ctco urt ch os e n otto res ol ve .” Cl is by, 96 0 F .2dat 9 35 -3 6. We ackno wled ge d t he di srup ti ve effe ctth atsu ch “pi ecemeal li ti ga ti on ” h as on a st at e’s cri m in al jus ti ce syste m an d re as on edth atit s fe de ral habe as co rp us pro cedur es sh ou ldbe de si gn ed to m in im iz e su ch di srup ti on . Id

. at93 5. Acco rd in gl y , in aneffo rt t o s tre am li ne 6habe as co rp us pro cedur e, we in st ru ct eddi st ric t co urts to res ol ve all cla im s ra is ed

in § 2 25 4 p et it io ns , reg ard le ss of wh et he r rel ie f is ul ti m at el y de ni ed . W e furth er
en su redco m

pl ia nc e wit h thi s i ns tru ct io n b y ho ld in g t ha t, wh en th e d is tri ctco urt do es no t ad dr es s ea ch cla im rai se d, t he jud gm en t wi ll be va cat edan d t he cas e wil l be rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . Id

. at 9 38 . In d et erm in in g wh et he r a cl ai m ha s b eenrai se d a de qu at el y , we hav e d et erm in edth at“ [ p ] ro se pl ead in gs are h el d to a le ss strin ge ntst an da rdth an pl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con st ru ed .” Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed St at es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m ). In App re nd i , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t, “ [o ]the r th an th e fac t o f a p rio r
co nv ic ti on , any fact t ha t i nc reas es th e p en al ty for a cr im e b ey on d t he pre sc rib ed st atut ory m ax im um m us t b e su bm it te d t o ajury, an d p ro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” App re nd i , 53 0 U.S. at49 0, 1 20 S. Ct. at23 62 -6 3. Aft er ex am in in g t he st at e o f W as hi ng to n’s s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s, t he Supr em e Co urt h el d i n Bla kel y th atth e im

po si ti on of asen te nc in g e nh an cem en t, b as edso le ly on t he sen te nc in g jud ge ’s factua l fi nd in gs , vi ol at edth e d efen da nt ’s Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts be cau se th e fac ts supp orti ng th e fi nd in gs ne it he r were a dm it te d b y th e d efen da ntno r fo un d by a j ury . Bla kel

y , 54 2 U.S. at30 4- 05 , 12 4 S . Ct. at25 37 -3 8.

7The st at e arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ad dr es se d B at tl e’s App re nd icla im

an d t ha t an y Cl is by erro r was ha rm le ss . The d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t Bla kel y reaf firm edth e App re nd ide ci si on , and , th eref or e, in co rp or at edan y App re nd i cl ai m to a Bla kel

ycla im . Becau se Bla kel

ycla rif ie d a ndex te nd ed App re ndito st at e
se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , itge ne ral ly w ou ldbe po ss ib le to co ns id er ar gu m en ts un de r th es e cas es as b ei ng th e sa m e. The c ou rt d en ie d t he cla im , ho wev er, o n aba si s ap pl ic ab le on ly to Bla kel

y , ret ro act iv it y , andde ci de d t ha t Ba tt le ’s st at e p et it io n
was fin al a few m on th s b efo re t he Supr em e Co urt d eci de d Bla kel yin20 04
. Bec au se App re nd iwas d eci de d i n 2 00 0, t he di st ric t co urt ei th er d idno t ad dr es s t he App re nd icla im

wit h t he ret ro act iv it y

an al y si s o r, if i t d idad dr es s t he cla im , it
erre d. Th e COA que st io n was no t wh et he r th ere was an y erro r in th is reg ard , bu t rat he r whe th er t he co urt fa il edto ad dr es s t he App re nd icla im . In t he in te res t o f jud ic ia l ec on omy , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co ns id er t he App re nd icla im

an d t o app ly the Cl is by an al y si s. The st at e al so co nt en ds th atwe sh ou ldno t re m an d B at tl e’s cas e b ecau se , ev en if the di st ric t co urt erred , Bat tl e’s cl ai m s wo ul d h av e fai le d o n t he m eri ts . The st at e es se nt ia ll y

urg es us to ap pl y

a ha rm le ss -err oran al y si s. Des pi te th e st at e’s arg um en t, n ot hi ng in Cl is by in di cat es th atha rm le ss -err oran al y si s s ho ul d

8ap pl y

when th e d is tri ctco urt h as erre d u nd er Cl is by . Alth ou gh th e res po nd en t i n Clisb yurg edus to co ns id er t he cla im s n otad dr es se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt, we
co nc lu de d t ha t “ [w]e c[ou ld ] do no m or e th an rem an d t he cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt to co ns id er al l re m ai ni ng cla im s.” 9 60 F.2dat 9 35 . Thu s, t he st at e’s arg um en t i s
un av ai li ng , bec au se , un de r Cl is by , when a di st ric t co urt fa il s t o a ddres s a de fen da nt ’s cla im , we wil l v acat e th e jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns forth e co urt t o c on si de r th atcla im . 96 0 F .2dat 9 38
. W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o a dd res s B at tl e’s App re nd icla im . In Ba tt le ’s pet it io n a ndin hi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, h e ad equa te ly rais edth e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im of wh et he r hi s s en te nc e v io la te d App re nd i . Und er Cl is by , we hav e req ui redth atdi stric t co urts ad dr es s al l cl ai m s rai se d i n a§ 2 25 4 p et it io n, re ga rd le ss of wh et he r rel ie f wil l b e d en ie d u lt im at el y . 96 0 F .2dat 9 35 -3 6. Th e co urt fa il edto m ak e an y m en ti on of B at tl e’s App re nd i cl ai m an d d en ie d h is ot he r cl ai m ba se d o n aret ro act iv it y

an al y si s. Th eref

or e, be cau se th e co urt’s o rd er v io la te d Cl is byby fail in g t o a dd res s o ne of t he cla im s
as se rte d i n B at tl e’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n, we v acat e th e jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d
rem an d the rem ai ni ng cla im for co ns id erat io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt. II I. CONCLUSI ON

9W e h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredwhen itdi sm is se d B at tl e’s m ot io n fo r

reco ns id erat io n o f th e d en ia l o f hi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d, b ecau se it de ni edBat tl e’s pe ti ti on us in g aret ro act iv it y an al y si s. We als o h ol d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredun de r Cl is by by fail in g t o a ddres s B at tl e’s App re nd icla im
. Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd ers an d re m an d t hi s ca se forfur th er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwit h t hi s o pi ni on . VACATED an d REMANDED.

10