T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

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

### M ay23,2006 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, N o. 05- 1311 v. D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado E M I L I O E S CA M I L L O,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o. 04- C V - 2201 W D M and 0 3 - C R - 6 9 W D M)

OR DER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. E m i l i o E s cami l l o, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i t y( C O A ) thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM r . E s cami l l o has fai l ed t o m ake “ 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 , ” w e DE NY his request fo r a C O A a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. Id. § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- I . Backg r ound M r . E s cami l l o w as char ged w i th fourcount s of vi ol at i ng fede r al l aw : one countof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of a coca i ne mi xtur e ( C ount O ne) ; one countof pos s es s i ng w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne ( C ountT w o) ; one countof us i ng and ca r r y i ng a fi r earm i n fur ther ance of drug tr aff i cki ng ( C ount F o u r ) ; a n d o n e c o u n to f b e i n g a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m ( Co u n tF i v e ) . He pl eade d gui l t yt o t he tw o drug count s and a j ur yacqui t t ed hi m of the r emai ni ng fi r earm char ges . M r . E s cami l l o w as s ent ence d t o 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm enton eac h of the drug count s , t he s ent ence s t o be s erved conc urr ent l y . I n as cert ai ni ng th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s ra n g e , the d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t M r. E sc a m ill o p o ss e ss e d a fire a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e o ffe n se , an d th e re fo re in c re a se d h is b ase o ffen se lev el bytw o leve ls. E v en w ith the fir ea rm en h an ce m en t, M r. E s cami l l o r ece i ved the mandat orys t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence as t o both C ount O n e a n d C o u n t T w o . M r. E sc a m ill o , thr o u g h h is a tto rn e y , file d a m o tio n to amend t he j udgm entt o r emove t he fi r earm enhanc ementeven though i tw oul d not r educe hi s s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed the mot i on. M r . E s cami l l o di d not a p p e a l. O n O ct ober22, 2004, M r . E s cami l l o, r epr es ent ed bycouns el , fi l ed a M o t i o n U n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 t o V a c a t e , S e tA s i d e , o rC o rr e c tS e n t e n c e b y a Per s on i n Feder al C us t ody . I n t he mot i on, M r . E s cami l l o ar gued thatt he tw ol evel i ncr eas e forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm vi ol at ed B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542-3-

U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). S u b se q u e n tly , o n M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. E sc a m ill o se n t a le tter to t he di s t r i ctcour tj udge compl ai ni ng thatM r . E s cami l l o’ s att orneydi d noti ncl ude an i s s ue thatM r . E s cami l l o had di r ect ed hi s att or neyt o r ai s e i n the § 2255 m oti on . In the lett er, M r. E scam i l l o st at ed, “I w as denied m yri gh tt o a fir st appea l bas ed on err oneous i nform at i on and thatunderthe ci r cumst ance s m yr i ght to a first d ire c t ap p e a l sh o u ld b e re in sta ted . T h u s fa r m ya tto rn e yh a s re f u se d to pr es entt hi s gr ound beca us e he b e liev e s it to b e f riv o lo u s.” R . D o c . 1 3 6 . T h is l et t erw as pr ovi ded onl yt o t he di s tr i ctcour t , nott o governm entcouns el . T he di s t r i ctcourtor der ed the governm entt o r es pond t o M r . E s cami l l o’ s § 2255 m o ti o n . In a sec o n d let ter t o the d istri ct co u rt , d ated M arc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. E s cami l l o t hanked the di s t r i ctcour tj udge foror der i ng the governm entt o r es pond t o hi s § 2255 m ot i on. M r . E s cami l l o al s o not ed hi s conce rn thatthe governm ent w as noti ns t ruct ed t o r es pond t o hi s ar gum entthathe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o a d ire c t ap p e a l. H e in fo rm e d th e c o u rt: I do notw antt he governm entt o l at ercl ai m thatI di d notr ai s e the m att er o f m yb eing d en ied m yri g h t t o a fir st ap p ea l. I ask the C o u rt t o “l i ber al l y ” cons t rue myl et t ert o the C our tdat ed M ar ch 1, 2005 as a su p p lem e n t to th e p e n d in g S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a s a llo w e d b yR u le 15( a) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and a s pr ovi ded by Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U . S . 5 1 9 (19 7 2 ). R . D oc. 138. I n deny i ng M r . E s cami l l o’ s § 2255 m ot i on, the di s tr i ctcourthel d that B la ke ly d i d n o ta p p l yr e t r o a c t i v e l yt o c o n v i c t i o n s th a twe r e fi n a l a tth e t i me-4-

B la ke ly w a s d e c id e d . T h e c o u rt d id n o t ad d re ss M r. E sc a m ill o ’s c laim , rais e d in his ex p a rte l et t er s t o t he di s t r i ctcourt , thathe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o a di r ect ap p ea l. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. E sca m il lo’s req u est fo r a C O A . M r. E sca m il lo n o w ask s this C o u rtto g ran t his requ est fo r a C O A o r t o o rde r a s um m aryr emand t o t he di s t r i ctcourtbeca us e he w as deni ed the r i ghtt o a di r ect a p p e a l. I I . D i s cus s i on T he deni al of a mot i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2255 m aybe appe al ed o n ly if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m 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) . I n or der to m a k e su c h a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d fur t her . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483- 84 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e tu rn first to M r. E sc a m ill o ’s r e q u e st th a t w e su m m a rilyre m a n d th is cas e bac k t o t he di s t r i ctcour tbeca us e he w as deni ed the opportuni tyfora di r ect a p p e a l. T h is C o u rt w ill n o t a d d re s s a n is s u e ra is e d fo r t h e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. United S tates v. Moo re , 2 2 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 n .3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). A n ticip a tin g th is r es ul t , M r . E s cami l l o cl ai m s t hathi s M ar ch 1, 2005 l et t er , w hi ch i nform ed the-5-

cour tof hi s l aw y er ’ s fai l ur e t o ar gue thathe w as deni ed a di r ectappea l , w as s uffi ci entt o amend hi s § 2255 m ot i on. M r . E s cami l l o corr ect l yas s er t s that Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) pr ovi des l i ber al s t andar ds foramendi ng a p lea d in g : b e fo re a re sp o n siv e p lea d in g is filed a p a rtym a ya m e n d a p lea d in g a t a n ytim e w ith o u t lea v e o f c o u rt, an d a f

ter a re sp o n siv e p lea d in g is filed lea v e to a m e n d “ sh a ll b e f

re e lyg iv e n w h e n ju stic e so re q u ire s.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ); s ee als o R ut l edge v . Uni t ed Stat es , 2 3 0 F .3 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 5 1 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ U n til a fin a l ru lin g h a s b e e n iss u e d , a d istric t co u rt m u st c o n sid e r a p e tit io n e r’s re q u e st to amend hi s § 2255 m ot i on, t hough the courtneed notgr antthe r eques t ed amendm ent s . ”) . T hus , i f M r . E s cami l l o pr oper l ys oughtt o amend hi s § 2255 pet i t i on t o i ncl ude a c l ai m t hathe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o a di r ectappea l , the di s t r i ctcourtw as r equi r ed, ata mi ni m um , t o cons i derhi s r eques tt o amend. H o w e v e r, M r. E sc a m ill o ’s le tters to th e d istric t co u rt w e re n o t m o tio n s to amend hi s i ni t i al § 2255 pet i t i on. H i s pr i vat e M ar ch 1, 2005 l et t ert o the j udge w a s a “ c o m p lain t” th a t h is a tto rn e yd id n o t in c lu d e a n iss u e th a t h e w ish e d to r ai s e. R . D oc. 136. I tw as nots t y l ed as a mot i on t o amend and di d notas k the c o u rt to a m e n d th e e a rlier p e tit io n . H is s e c o n d lette r, d a ted M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , d id as k t he courtt o “‘ l i ber al l y ’ cons true [hi s pr evi ous l et t er ] as a s uppl ementt o the pendi ng Sect i on 2255 m ot i on as al l ow ed byR ul e 15( a) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. ” R . D oc. 138. L i ke the fi r s tl et t er , how ever , the s econd l et t er w a s n o t s tyle d a s a m o tio n to a m e n d a n d w a s n o t p ro v id e d to o p p o s in g c o u n s e l.-6-

B ecause M r. E scam i l l o w as r epresent ed b ycou nsel w hen he sub m i t t ed the l et t ers , th e ru le th a t pr o s e p le a d in g s a re in te rp re te d lib e ra lly w a s in a p p lic a b le to h im . See Rut l edge , 230 F. 3d at1052 ( fi ndi ng thata habe as pet i t i onerw ho w as re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l w a s n o t en tit led to h a v e th e d istric t co u rt libe ra lly c o n stru e lette rs m a iled to th e d istric t co u rt a s m o tio n s to a m e n d ). M r. E sc a m ill o w as aw ar e thathi s l aw y erw as notfol l ow i ng hi s i ns truct i ons w i th r es pectt o that cl ai m . M r. E scam i l l o w as therefore con front ed w i th several op t i on s: he co uld ask hi s l aw y erfori ns t ruct i ons on how t o fi l e a pro se su p p lem e n tal b rie f, h e c o u ld fi nd a new l aw y erw ho w oul d fol l ow hi s r eques t s , orhe coul d fi r e hi s l aw y erand pr ocee d pro se . B eca us e M r . E s cami l l o chos e t o r et ai n hi s l aw y erdes pi t e the l aw y er ’ s fai l ur e t o fol l ow M r . E s cami l l o’ s i ns truct i ons , M r . E s cami l l o w as not e n tit led to h a v e th e d istric t co u rt libe ra llyc o n stru e h is le tter a s a m o tio n to amend. A ccor di ngl y , t her e w as no m ot i on t o amend befor e the di s tr i ctcourt , the di s t r i ctcourtdi d noterri n notcons i der i ng M r . E s cami l l o’ s cl ai m thathe w as deni ed a di r ectappea l , and w e w i l l notcons i derthe i s s ue bec aus e i tw as r ai s ed fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l. N ext , M r . E s cami l l o ar gues thathi s convi ct i on w as “obt ai ned bya pl ea of g u il tyw ith o u t un d erstan d ing the c o n seq u en ce s o f h is plea.” O p en ing B r. 1 1 . M r. E s cami l l o di d notpr es entt hi s i s s ue t o the di s tr i ctcour ti n hi s i ni t i al § 2255 pet i t i on. B eca us e he fai l ed t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue i n the di s tr i ctcour t , w e w i l l not c o n s id e r i t o n a p p e a l. Moo re , 2 2 F .3 d a t 2 4 3 n .3 .-7-

F in a lly , h e c o n ten d s th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt’s d e c isio n to in c re a se h is b ase o ffen se lev el fo r po sses sion o f a firearm v iolated th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . H ow ever , nei ther B ookern o r B la ke ly a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly to c a s e s o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . Uni t ed S ta t e s v . B e l l a my , 411 F. 3d 1182, 1186 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . B eca us e hi s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal befor e ei t herdeci s i on w as i s s ued, M r . E s cami l l o cannotchal l enge h is sen tenc e u n d er e ith er B ookero r B la ke ly . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY E m i l i o E s cami l l o’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge