FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 18 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -2 26 46 -J IC, 1 :0 8- cr-2 06 85 -J IC-1
VERTILIO DE LAROSA, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Vert il io De La Ro sa , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g wi th th e as si st an ce o f

ap po in te d app el la te co un se l, ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is pro se 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55
m ot io n t o v acat e. Rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm in pa rt a ndva cat e in pa rt a ndrem an d. De La Ro sarece iv eda to ta l s en te nc e o f 48 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t af

te r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to m ak in g afal se st at em en t o n apa ss po rt app li cat io n, i ll eg al reen try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s, an d a gg rav at edid en ti ty the ft. In hi s s ect io n 2 25 5
m ot io n De La R os a rai se d s ev encla im s -- on ly thre e o f whi ch are atis su e o n ap pe al -- in cl ud in g t ha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r (1 ) fai li ng to reco gn iz e
orm ak e De La Ro saaware o f th e imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of h is gu il ty ple a an d fai li ng to ne go ti at e eff

ect iv el y wit h t he go ve rn m en t t o a vo idau to m at ic de po rta ti on ; (2 ) fai li ng to m ov e fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re b as edon De La Ro sa ’s imm ig rat io n s ta tu s; an d (3 ) fai li ng to arg ue , bas edon Flo res -Fi gu ero a v . Uni te d St at es , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 88 6 (2 00 9) , th atDe La Ro sawas n otgu il ty of ag gr av at ed id en ti ty the ft b ecau se he di d n otkn ow t ha t t he id en ti fic at io n h e u se d b el on ge d t o
an ot he r pe rs on . The m ag is tra te jud ge co ns tru edCla im s 1 an d 2 as asi ng le cla im -- th atDe La Ro sa ’s cou ns el was i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to m ov e fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re t o of fs etth e ad di ti on al ti m e h e wou ldserve whi le th e g ov ern m en t p ro ces se d h is
2de po rta ti on ord er -- a ndreco m m en de d d en y in g i t. Nex t, t he m ag is tra te co ns tru ed Cl ai m 3 as ass ert in g b ot h an i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m an d a n
un de rlyin g c la im

th atDe La Ro sa ’s con vi ct io n was in va li d b ecau se th e go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve each ele m en t o f th e o ffen se . The m ag is tra te reco m

m en de d d en y in g t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m rai se d i n C la im

3 b utreco m

m en de d g ran ti ng De La Ro sa ’s m ot io n b as edon hi s u nd erl y in g c ha ll en ge to hi s ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft c on vi ct io n. In do in g s o, th e m ag is tra te co nc lu de d t ha t Fl or es -Fi gu ero a ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y an d t ha t, al th ou gh De La Ro safai le d t o ra is e th is arg um en t o n d ire ctap pe al , he o ve rcam e pr oc edur al de fau ltbe cau se he was a ctua ll y in no cen t o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft. Alt ho ug h t he di stric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d
reco m m en da ti on in pa rt, i t re ve rs edth e m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on on Cla im

3. Indo in g s o, t he di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t De La Ro safai le d t o o ve rco m e h is pr oc edur al de fau ltbe cau se su ffi ci en t ev id en ce ex is te d fo r a rea so nabl e juro r to
co nc lu de th atDe La Ro sakn ew th atth e m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n b el on ge d t o
an ot he r pe rs on . W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) o n the se is su es :

3(1 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt v io la te d C li sb y v. J on es , 96 0 F .2d 92 5, 9 36 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) whe n i t fa il edto ad dr es s De La Ro sa ’s arg um en t i n C la im 1, t ha t h is pl ea was in va li d b ecau se co un se l fa il edto m ak e h im se lf o r De La Ro saaware o f th e imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of agu il ty ple a an d fa il edto ne go ti at e m or e fav or ab le de po rta ti on term s wi th th e go ve rn m en t? (2 ) As t o C la im

3: (a) whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin co ns tru in g t hi s cl ai m as rai si ng anin de pe nd en t ac tu al in no cen ce cl ai m or a cl ai m th athi s p le a d idno t qua li fy as i nt el li ge ntfol lo win g th e n arro wedde fin it io n o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft an no un cedin Uni te d S ta te s v . Flo res -Fi gu ero a . . . , (b ) an d, wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin fin di ng th atDe La Ro safai le d t o o ve rco m e p ro cedur al de fau ltto bri ng hi s cl ai m pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5? On ap pe al , De La Ros a arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt v io la te d C li sb y by fai li ng to ad dr es s the is su es rai se d i n C la im 1. In c on si de rin g adi st ric t co urt’s 1 de ni al of asec ti on 22 55 m ot io n, we re vi ew factde te rm in at io ns forcle ar erro r an d qu es ti on s o f la w de n ov o. Th om as v. Un it edSta te s, 5 72 F.3d13 00 , 13 03 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). 2

We will not consider De L a Rosa’s arguments about the merits of Claim 1 beca use these 1 arguments are outside t he scope of the COA. See Murra y v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating that, in a section 2255 proce eding , “appe llate revie w is limit ed to the issues specifie d in the COA”). In addition, we construe li b er al l y p ro se pleading s. Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 2 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 4InCli sb y , we wrot e th atdi st ric t co urts m us t “ res ol ve all co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s p res en te d i n ape ti ti onforwritof h ab eas co rp us pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 be fo re g ran ti ng or d en y in g re li ef.” 9 60 F.2dat 9 34 ; s ee al so Rh od e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 83 F.3d12 89 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ex te nd in g C li sb y ’s requi rem en t t o re so lv e al l cl ai m s fo r rel ie f to sec ti on 22 55 m ot io ns ). A “ cl ai m for rel ie f” i s d efi ne d a s “ an y

all eg at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n” ; an d a ll eg at io ns of di st in ctco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns co ns ti tu te sep arat e cl ai m s fo r rel ie f “ ev enif bo th all eg at io ns ari se fro m th e sa m e al le ge d s etof o pe rat iv e fac ts . Cli sb y , 96 0 F.2 d a t 9 36
. The di stric t co urt fa il edto co ns id er t he arg um en ts rai se d i n C la im 1 o f De La Ro sa ’s sec ti on 22 55 m ot io n. Co ns tru edli be ral ly, De La Ro saass ert edin Cl ai m 1 t ha t h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r (a) f ai li ng to reco gn iz e an d t o a dv is e De La Ro sath athe wou ldbe subjec t t o a dd it io na l i m pr is on m en t wh il e awai ti ng de po rta ti on ; (b ) fai li ng to reco gn iz e an d t o a dv is e De La Ro sath athe wou ldbe
subjec t t o aut om at ic de po rta ti on if c on vi ct edof acri m e fo r whi ch th e p os si bl e
se nt en ce ex ceed edon e y ear; an d (c ) fai li ng to ne go ti at e a m or e fav or ab le pl ea ag reem en t. Bec au se each of t he se arg um en ts co ns ti tu te s a s ep arat e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m un de r Cl is by bu t was no t ad dr es se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt, we v acat e th e

5de ni al of t he m ot io n a ndrem an d t he cas e wit h i ns tru ct io ns forth e d is tri ctco urt t o

co ns id er ea ch di st in ctcla im rai se d i n C la im

1. Nex t, we ad dr es s the Cla im 3 i ss ue s. De La Ro saarg ue s -- an d t he go ve rn m en t co nc ed es -- th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly con st ru edCla im 3 as rai si ng anin de pe nd en t ac tu al in no cen ce cl ai m . W e ag ree. De La Ro saarg ue d pl ai nl y th athe was n otgu il ty of ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft b ecau se he di d n otin te nd to st eal an ot he r pe rs on ’s id en ti ty anddi d n otkn ow t ha t the id en ti fic at io n h e u se d be lo ng edto anactua l p ers on . W e al so ag ree, h owe ve r, wit h t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atDe La Ro safai le d t o o ve rco m e h is pro cedur al de fau lton th atcla im . “ Whe re a d efen da nt ha s p ro cedur al ly defau lt eda cl ai m by fail in g t o ra is e iton di rectrev ie w, th e cl ai m
m ay be rai se d i n [asec ti on 22 55 m ot io n] on ly if th e d efen da ntcan fir st de m on st rat e ei th er ‘cau se ’ an d a ctua l ‘pre jud ic e,’ or th athe is ‘ actua ll y in no cen t.’” Bo us le y v. Un it edSta te s, 1 18 S.Ct . 16 04 , 16 11 (19 98 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . In t hi s
cas e, De La Ro saarg ue s o nl y th athe is actua ll y

in no cen t. To e st ab li sh actua l in no cen ce, De La Ro sam us t d em on st rat e th at , in th e li gh t o f al l t he ev id en ce, “ itis
m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atno reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve co nv ic te d h im .” Id
. Bec au se “ ‘actu al in no cen ce’ m ean s fa ctua l i nn oc en ce, n otm ere l eg al in su ffi ci en cy ,” th e g ov ern m en t m ay rel y on adm is si bl e ev id en ce o f De La Ro sa ’s
6gu il t ev enif t ha t ev id en ce was no t p res en te d dur in g t he pl ea co ll oq uy. See i d. at

16 11 -1 2. InFlo res -Fi gu ero a -- d eci de d a fte r De La Ro sawas s en te nc ed-- th e Uni te d St at es Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t o o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on forag gr av at edid en ti ty th eft , th e g ov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve “ th atth e d efen dantkn ew th atth e m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n a t i ss ue be lo ng edto an othe r pe rs on .” 12 9 S .Ct. at18 94 . Andth e go ve rn m en t m ay

rel y on cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh th atele m en t o f th e of fen se . Uni te d S ta te s v . Gom ez-C as tro , 60 5 F .3d12 45 , 12 49 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

“ Bo th th e ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch anoff en de r ob ta in eda vi ct im ’s id en ti ty andth e of fen de r’s la te r m is us e o f th atid en ti ty can s he d l ig hton th e o ffen de r’s kn owl ed ge ab ou t tha t i de nt it y .” Id . at 1 24 8. Fo r ex am pl e, in Gom ez-C as tro , we con cl ud ed th atcir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rte d a n a gg rav at edid en ti ty the ft c on vi ct io n whe n the de fen da ntpa ida la rg e su m of $ 2,5 00 fora bi rth cert ifi cat e an d s oc ia l
se cu rit y cardan d t he n “ rep eat ed ly andsu cces sf ul ly test edth e au th en ti ci ty” of th os e d oc um en ts by usi ng th em to ob ta in a dr iv er’s l ic en se , two cred itcard s, a ba nkcard , anda Uni te d S ta te s p as sp ort. Id . In a s im il ar ca se , we det erm in edth at
a rea so nabl e juro r co ul d h av e fo un d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t t he de fen da nt kn ew th ata so ci al sec ur it y cardbe lo ng edto a real pe rs on when sh e u se d i t t o

7ob ta in a Uni te d S ta te s p as sp ort, a d riv er’s l ic en se , anda li ne of c red it . Uni te d

St at es v. Ho lm es , 59 5 F .3d12 55 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th atsu ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al
ev id en ce ex is te d t o p ro ve th atDe La Ro sakn ew th atth e id en ti fic at io n h e u se d be lo ng edto anactua l p ers on . He purch as eda bi rth cert ifi cat e an d s oc ia l s ecu rit y cardin th e n am e o f A.S.B. fo r $1 ,50 0. He al so su cces sf ul ly use d t ho se do cu m en ts to ob ta in a Fl or id a driv er’s l ic en se , to ob ta in a m ortg ag e, an d t o o pe n ach eck in g
acco un t, al l i n A.S.B.’s n am e. Inth e li gh t o f th is ev id en ce, i t i s u nl ik el y th atno
reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve co nv ic te d De La R os a o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft a s th atoff en se is de fin edin Flo res -Fi gu ero a. Thu s, De La Ro saha s fa il edto 3 de m on st rat e th athe is “ actua ll y in no cen t” of h is off

en se su chth athe m ay
ov erco m e h is pro cedur al ba r. 4 AFFIR MED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

In his appellate brief, De L a Rosa argu es th at t h e district court err ed in failing to rely on or 3 addre ss this Court’s unpublished decision in United States v. Gaspa r, 344 F. App’ x 541 (11th Cir. 2009). We reje ct this argument beca use our unpublishe d d ec i s i o ns do not constitute binding prec edent. See Moore v. B arnha rt, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 2005). Be cause the rec ord aff

irmatively contra dicts De L a Rosa’s alleg ations of actua l innoc ence , the 4 district c ourt did not abuse its discr etion in de nying De L a Rosa’s se ction 2255 motion withoutan evidentiar y hearing. See Aron v. United States, 291 F .3d 708, 715, 715 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002). 8