FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 11506 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 6 0 2 2 3 - C V- AJ R O D R I G U E B I R O T T E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , B I L L M C C O L L U M , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 4, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R od ri gu e B i rott e, a F l ori da pri soner, proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f

h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n f o rla c k o f

ju r is d ic tio n . B ir o tte f i l e d the i ns t a nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on, a tt a c ki ng hi s F e brua ry 2, 2001, F l or i dac onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng ac onc e a l e d f i r e a rm , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n 30 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed B i ro tt e’ s § 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n fo r l ack o f j u ri sd i ct i o n b ecau se B i r ott e w a s not“ i n c us t ody ” w i th r e s pe c tt o the c onvi c t i on he w a s a tt a c ki ng, a s he had al re ady s erved h i s 30-m on th sent ence and w as i ncar ce ra t ed for a n u nrel at ed co n v i ct i o n . W e g ran t ed a C ert i fi cat e o f A p p eal ab i l i ty o n th e fo l l o w i n g i ssu e o n l y: W h eth er a rem o v al o rd er, b ased o n a sen t en ce th ath as ex p i red , i s a “c o lla te r a l c o n s e q u e n c e ” o f th e c o n v ic tio n th a t s a tis f ie s th e “in c u s t o d y ” r e q u i r e me n to f § 2 2 5 4 ( a ) u n d e rM a l e n g v . Co o k , 4 9 0 U . S. 488, 109 S . C t . 1923, 104 L . E d. 2d 540 ( 1989) O n app ea l , B i rott e a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y denyi ng hi m re l i ef w ith o u t a d d r e s s in g th e m e r its o f h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . B ir o tte a r g u e s th a t h e m e e ts th e “in c u s to d y ” r e q u ir e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 ( a ) b e c a u s e h e is in c u s to d y p u r s u a n t to a nothe rc onvi c t i on tha ti s di r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the c onvi c t i on tha thi s § 2254 pe t i t i on a tt a c ks . H e c ont e nds a l s o tha tthe “ i n c us t ody ” r e qui r e m e ntof § 2254 doe s not cond i t i on habeas j uri sdi ct i on on ac tual ph ys i ca l confi nem entor re stra i nt , bu tra ther r e f e r s to v a r io u s r e s tr a in ts o n lib e r ty th a t a r e n o t s h a r e d w ith th e p u b lic a t la r g e . B i r ott e a r gue s tha t , a s s uc h, he c a n s t i l l be “ i n c us t ody ” f orhabe a s j ur i s di c t i on pu rposes even tho ug h h e has fi ni shed se rvi ng hi s s ent ence for the conv i ct i on un der3

att ac k atthe t i m e thathi s § 22 54 pet i t i on w as fi l ed. In addi t i on , B i rott e a rgues that h e h a s m e t th e “in c u s to d y ” r e q u ir e m e n t, d e s p ite h is e x p ir e d s e n te n c e , b e c a u s e h e is suff er i ng fr om col l at er al consequences of hi s c on vi ct i on for c arry i ng a c on ce al ed fi re arm . S peci fi ca l l y, B i rott e c l ai m s that : (1) the conv i ct i on af fe ct ed the se nt ence h e is c u rr e n tly s e rv in g f o rc o c a in e tr a f

f ic k in g ; ( 2 ) h is r ig h t to v o te , h o ld p u b lic offi ce , and serve on a j ury have been t aken aw ay ; (3) hi s l i ce nse t o o pera t e a n i m po rt/ expo rtbu si ness w i l l be re vo ked; (4) upo n com pl et i on of hi s i nst antse nt ence , he w i l l be r e m ove d f

r om , a nd ba rr e d f

r om r e turni ng t o, the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; a nd (5) hi s r eput at i on i s dam aged, such thathe w i l l have di ff i cul ty e nt er i ng any other c ountry . H e c onc l ude s tha thi s r e m ova l , a nd a l l the othe rc ons e que nc e s c om bi ne d, w oul d r e s ul ti n ade pr i va t i on of l i be r ty a nd a m ountt o e xtr apuni s hm e nttha ti s not a llo w e d u n d e rth e C o n s titu tio n . W hen revi ew i ng the deni al of a § 22 54 pet i t i on , w e r evi ew qu es t i on s of l aw a n d m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f

la w a n d f

a c t d e n o v o , a n d f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r . N y la n d v . M o o r e , 2 1 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 ( a ) o f

T itle 2 8 s ta te s , in r e le v a n t p a r t: [A ] di stri ctcourtshal l ent ert ai n an app l i ca t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus i n b ehal f of apers on i n cust od y pursuantt o the j ud gm entof a S t a t e c our tonl y on the gr ound tha the i s i n c us t ody i n vi ol a t i on of the C o n st i tu t i o n o r l aw s o r treat i es o f th e U n i t ed S t at es. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; s e e a ls o 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) .4

T he S up re m e C ou rthas s t at ed thatthe “ i n cust od y” re qu i re m entm ea ns “ that the habeas pet i t i on er[m ust ] be ‘ i n cust od y’ un der the conv i ct i on or se nt ence un der att ac k atthe t i m e hi s pet i t i on i s f i l ed. ” M al eng, 49 0 U . S . at49 0-91 , 10 9 S . C t . at 1925. A c c or di ngl y , w he r e ape t i t i one r ’ s s e nt e nc e ha s f ul l y e xpi r e d, he doe s not m e e tthe “ i n c us t ody ” r e qui r e m e nt , a nd the m e r e pos s i bi l i ty tha tthe pr i orc onvi c t i on w i l l be us e d t o e nha nc e as e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ora ny s ubs e que ntc r i m e i s note nough t o render hi m “ i n cust od y. ” I d. at49 2, 10 9 S . C t . at19 26 . T he S up re m e C ou rt f u r th e rn o te d th a t, “o n c e th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o rac o n v ic tio n h a s c o m p le te ly e xpi r e d, the c ol l a t e r a l c ons e que nc e s of tha tc onvi c t i on a r e notthe m s e l ve s s uf f i c i e nt to r e n d e ra n in d iv id u a l ‘in c u s to d y ’ f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

ah ab e a s a tta c k u p o n it.” I d . S u c h c o lla te r a l c o n s e q u e n c e s in c lu d e d th e in ab ility to v o te , e n g a g e in c e r ta in b u s in e s s , h o ld p u b lic o f f ic e , o rs e rv e a s aju r o r . I d . a t 4 9 1 - 9 2 , 1 0 9 S .C t. a t 1 9 2 5 - 2 6 . T he C our tdi d a c know l e dge , how e ve r , tha tw he n a§ 2254 pe t i t i on c oul d be construed as as se rt i ng a c hal l enge t o a pres entse nt ence thatac tual l y w as enhanced by the al l egedl y i nv al i d p ri or conv i ct i on , the pri soner i s “ i n cust od y” for purpo se s o f f e d e r a l h ab e a s ju r is d ic tio n . I d . a t 4 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 9 S .C t. a t 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 . R ecen t l y, th e S u p rem e C o u r t, i n L ack aw an n a C o u n ty D i st . A tt ’ y y . C o ss, 5 3 2 U .S . 3 9 4 , 1 2 1 S .C t. 1 5 6 7 , 1 4 9 L .E d .2 d 6 0 8 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , h e ld th a t: o n c e as ta te c o n v ic ti o n i s n o lo n g e ro p e n to d ir e c t o rc o lla te r a l a tta c k in i t s ow n ri gh tbecause the defend an t fai l ed t o p ursue tho se re m edi es5

w h i l e th ey w ere av ai l ab l e (o r b ecau se th e d efen d an td i d so uns uc c e s s f

ul l y ) , the c onvi ct i o n m a y be r e ga r de d a s c onc l us i ve l y va l i d. I f t h at co n vi c t i on i s l a t e rus e d t o e nha nc e ac r i m i na l s e nt e nc e , the de f e nda ntge ne r a l l y m a y notc hal l e nge the e nha nc e d s e nt e nc e thr ough a pet i t i on un der § 22 54 on the g ro u n d th atthe pri or conv i ct i on w as unc ons t i tut i ona l l y obt a i ne d. Id. at40 3-04 , 12 1 S . C t . at 1 5 7 4 (c it at i on om i tt ed). A pri soner, ho w ever , m ay c h a l l e n g e a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n w h e n : ( 1 ) c o u n s e l i s n o t ap p o i n t e d , i n v i o l a t i o n of G i de on v. W a i nw r i ght , 372 U . S . 335, 83 S . C t . 792, 9 L . E d. 2d 799 ( 1963) ; o r( 2) no c ha nne l of

r e vi e w w a s a va i l abl e w i th r e s pe c tt o the pri o r co n v i ct i on, thr ough no f a ul tof the pe t i t i one r . I d. a t404- 05, 121 S . C t . 15 6 7 . T h e C our tba s e d i t s de c i s i on o n ( 1 ) th e c o n c e rn th a t ad is tr ic t c o u r t e v a lu a tin g a§ 2 2 5 4 p e ti t i o n w a s u n lik e ly to h av e th e d o cu m en t s n ecessa r y t o ev al u at e cl ai m s ari si n g fro m p ri o r p ro ceed i n g s, and (2 ) th e in t er es tof ob t ai ni ng fi nal i ty of j ud gm ent s. Id. at40 2-03 , 12 1 S . C t . at 15 73 -74. N ei ther s i tuat i on appears t o exi sthere . H e r e , w e gr a nt e d aC O A on the i s s ue of “ w he the rar e m ova l or de r , ba s e d on a se nt ence thathas e xp i re d, i s a‘ col l at er al consequence’ of the conv i ct i on that sa t i sf i es the ‘ i n cust od y’ re qu i rem en t o f § 2 2 54 (a ) und erM al eng [] . ” A s a n i ni t i al m a tt er, B i ro tt e co n ced es th atth e co n v i ct i o n an d sen t en ce h e w as att ack i n g i n h is § 2254 pe t i t i o n ha d e xpi r e d, buta r gue s tha the m e tthe “ i n c us t ody ” r e qui r e m e nt b e c a u s e th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n a f f e c te d th e 1 5 - y e a rs e n te n c e f o rtr a f f ic k in g th a t h e is c u rr e n tly s e rv in g , d e p r iv e d h i m th e r ig h t to v o te a n d h o ld p u b lic o f f ic e , r e s u lte d in6

th e rev o cat i o n o f h i s b u si n ess l i cen se, l ed t o h i s rem o v al , an d d am ag ed h is r e put a t i on. B i r ott e ’ s a r gum en t s co nc e rni ng the c ol l a t e r a l c ons e que nc e s of hi s pr i or c onvi c t i on, w i th the e xc e pt i on of hi s r e m oval ar gum e nt , a r e out s i de the s c ope of the C O A a nd, th u s , c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d o n r e v i e w . Se e M u rr a y v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 145 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 50 -51 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe sc op e of our revi ew i s l i m i t ed to th e is s u e s s p e c if

ie d in th e C O A ) . M a l e ng m a ke s c l e a rtha tthe “ i n c us t ody ” r e qui r e m en t m e a ns tha tthe pe t i t i one rm us tbe “ i n c us t ody ” unde rth e co n v i c t i on ors e nt e nc e unde ra tt a c k a tthe t i m e the habe a s pe t i t i on i s f i l e d, a nd the c ol l a t e r a l c ons e que nc e s of the c onvi c t i on, al on e , a r e i ns uf

f i c i e nt t o r e nd e r the de f e nd a nt “ i n c us t od y ” f

or the pu rpo s es of a h ab e a s a tta c k . S e e M a le n g , 4 9 0 U .S . a t 4 9 0 - 9 2 , 1 0 9 S .C t. a t 1 9 2 5 - 2 6 . H e r e , B ir o tte c onc e de s t h at hi s s e nt e nc e f orc a rry i ng ac onc e a l e d f i r e a rm ha s e xpi r e d, a nd thus th e c o l la te r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n –th e r e m o v a l o r d e r–is i nsuffi ci entt o render hi m i n cust od y f or the pu rposes of § 2 2 5 4 (a ). F urther, as L a c k a w a n n am a k e s c le a r , b e c a u s e B ir o tte ’s c o n v ic tio n h a s e x p ir e d , it is c onc l us i ve l y va l i d a nd ge ne r a l l y no l onge rope n t o a tt a c k. S e e L a ck aw a nna , 532 U .S . a t 4 0 3 - 0 4 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 1 5 7 4 . A c c o r d in g ly , b e c a u s e B ir o tte w a s n o t “in cust od y” a t the t i me tha t he f i l e d hi s § 22 54 pe t i t i on , a nd the r e mova l or de r w as m er el y acol l at er al consequence of the expi re d c o n v ict i on un der a tt ac k, the di stri ct7

c o u rt p ro p erl y d i sm i ssed h i s § 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n fo r l ack o f j u ri sd i ct i o n . T h erefo re, w e a f f irm . A FFI R M ED