2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-18-2006 

# Mich a el v . H orn P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-9002

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Mich a e l v . H or n " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 515. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/515P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT



### No. 04- 9002

HU BERT L. M I CH AEL,

A ppel l ant

v. M A R T I N H O R N , C om m i s s i oner , Penns y l vani a De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s ; * DAVI D DI GUGL I E L M O, Super i nt endentof the St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at Gr a t e r f o r d ; J OSEPH P. M AZU RK I EW I CZ, Super i nt endentof the St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on

atR ockvi ew * ( A m ended – See C l er k’ s O r derdat ed 1/ 6/ 05)

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 96- cv- 01554) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie2 A r gued J anuary12, 2006 Be f o r e : AM BR O, GR E E NB E RG and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed A ugus t18, 2006) J os eph M

. C os gr ove, E s qui r e ( A r gued) 1460 W y om i ng A venue For t yFor t , PA 18704 C ouns el forA ppel l ant T h o m as W

. C o rbe tt , Jr. A t t or neyG ener al R icha rd A

. S h ee tz, Jr. E xecut i ve D eputyA t t or neyG ener al D i r ect or , C r i m i nal L aw D i vi s i on A m yZ app C hi ef D eputyA t t or neyG ener al A ppeal s and Legal Ser vi ces Sect i on J onel l e H ar t erE s hbach ( A r gued) Seni orD eputyA t t or neyG ener al C a p ital L iti g a tio n U n it O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia St r aw berr ySquar e, 16t h Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17120 M i chae l A

. Far nan Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C or r ect i ons3 O ffi ce of C hi ef Counsel 55 U t l eyD r i ve P. O

. B ox 598 C amp H i l l , PA 17011 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge: A f terf in d in g H u b e rt M ich a e l c o m p e ten t to ter m in a te h is habeas cor

pus pet i t i on i n thi s death- penal t ycas e, t he D i s t r i ct C our tdi s m i s s ed thatpet i t i on. T h e di s m i s s al w as appea l ed, p u rp o rte d lyo n M ich a e l’s b e h a lf. H e late r v a c ill a ted o n h is des i r e t o di s m i s s t hi s appea l

. W e hol d t hatt he pr es um pt i on of cont i nui ng comp etencydoes notappl yher e bec aus e the foundat i onal expert for t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s compet encyfi ndi ng has s ugges t ed a ne w eval uat ion

. W e ther efor e r emand t o the D i s t r i ctC our tforanothercompet encyfi ndi ng. I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A . M i c h ael ’ s homi c i de c onv i c t i on a nd r e s ul t i ng deat h se nt ence4 H ub ert M i chael’ s st ory i s a l on g and co nv olut ed o ne, so w e p r e s e n t o n l yt h e f

a c t s m o s tr e l e v a n tt o o u rd e c i s i o n . We d raw m an yo f th e s e fa cts d ir ec tl yfro m the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o p i n i o n i n Mi cha elv. H orn , N o . 3 : C V

- 9 6

- 1 5 5 4 , 2 0 0 4 WL 438678 ( M

. D

. Pa. M ar . 10, 2004) , w hi ch i n tur n dr ew m anyof i t s fac t s fr om t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s opi ni on a f f ir m in g M ic h a e l’ s d e a th s e n te n c e , C om m onw eal th v . Mi chael , 6 7 4 A

. 2 d 1 0 4 4 (P a. 19 9 6 ). O n J ul y12, 1993, M i chae l pul l ed up al ongs i de 16- y ear - ol d T r i s t a Eng, w ho w as w al ki ng t o hers um m erj ob at a H ar dee’ s r es t aur ant , and offe r ed t o dr i ve hert o w or k. She got into th e car, an d M icha el dro v e to th e S tat e G am e L an d s in Y o rk C ount y , Penns y l vani a. H e for ced Eng outof the vehi cl e, s h ot hert hr ee t i m es w i t h a . 44 m agnum handgun, and concea l ed her b o d y. In la te A u g u st 1 9 9 3 , M ich a e l w a s c h a rg e d w ith firstdegr ee mur der

. I n Sept ember 1993, he w as t r ans ferr ed to t he m edi cal hous i ng ar ea of t he Lancas t er C ount yPr i s on for“cl os er obs er vat i on” bec aus e he fel l dow n t he s t ai r s i n a pos s i bl e s ui ci de a ttem p t (th o u g h M ich a e l h a s d e n ied th a t h e w a s try in g to k ill hi m s el f)

. I n N ovember 1993, M i chae l as s um ed the i dent i t yof an i nm at e w h o w as aboutt o be r el eas ed, and he e s cape d fr om pr i so n . I n t he s pr i ng of 1994, he w as appr ehende d i n N ew O r l eans and r etur ned t o Penns y l vani a. I n O ctob er1994, j ur ys el ect i on on t he murde rchar ge5 began i n t he B er ks C ount y , Penns y l vani a, C o u rtof C om m on Pl ea s . M i c h a e l p l e d g u i l t y t o f i r s t
- d e g r e e mur d e rand ki dnappi ng. H e tr i ed t o w i t hdr aw t hatpl ea s i x day s l at er , butt he C o u rt d e n ied h is p lea -w ith d ra w a l re q u e st. I n M ar ch 1995, M i chae l w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o be s ent ence d b ya j u r y . He a l s o s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e t wo a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s alle g e d b y th e C o m m o n w e a lth ( ki l l i ng dur i ng t he perpetr at i o n of a f el onyand a s i gni fi cant h ist o ry o f fe lon y co n v ict ion s), an d h e sti p u lat ed that there w ere no m it iga t i ng ci r cumst ance s . A ft eran ext ens i ve col l oquy , t he C our tacc ept ed M i ch ae l’ s w ai verof a r i ghtt o a j ur ys ent ence , found thatt he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s out w ei ghed the m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d im p o s e d th e d e a th p e n a lty.
T he Pennsy lvan ia S u p rem e C our t under t ook an i ndepende nt rev ie w of the r ecor d and af fi r m ed the convi ct i on a n d s e n te n c e . Mi c hael , 6 7 4 A

. 2d at1048. I n J ul y1996, G overnorT hom as R i dge s i gned an e xecut i on w arr ant , and M i chae l ’ s exec ut i on w as s chedul ed forA ugus t1996.
B . T h e D ist rict C o u rt’s stay o f M ich a el’s execut i on A ppr oxi m at el y one w eek befor e the s chedul ed exe cut i on dat e, t he D efe nderA s s oci at i on of Phi l adel phi a, C api t al H abea s C orpus U ni t , m oved fora s t ayof exe cut i on and an a ppoi nt m ent of couns el i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort h e M idd l e D i s t r i ctof42 Pa. C ons . St at
. A nn. §§ 9541–9546. 1 6 Penns y l vani a. T hatC our tgr ant ed the s t ayand appoi nt ed the D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n a s M ich a e l’s c o u n sel

. M i c h a e l th e n w ro te a lette r d ism iss in g th e D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n f

ro m a c tin g a s h is c o u n se l an d re q u e stin g th a t G o v e rn o r R id g e re -sig n h is exec ut i on w arr ant“as s oon as pos s i bl e. ” Mi chael , 2 0 0 4 WL 438678, at*4.
I n r es pons e, t he D efe nder A s s oci at i on t ook t he pos i t i on t hatM i chae l w as not compet ent
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi r ect ed the D efe nderA s s oci at i on t o confe rw i t h M i chae l

. F o ll o w ing that confe r ence , at t or ney B i l l y N ol as s ubm i t t ed a d ecl ar at i on des cr i bi ng M i chae l as “‘ agi t at ed, i ncoher ent , i r r at i onal , s ad, unabl e t o cont r ol h is v ary i ng emot i ons , and ul t i m at el y . . . cat at oni c and compl et el y uncomm uni cat i ve. ’ ” I d. at*5. T he decl ara t i on al s o i ndi cat ed thatM i chae l had author i zed N ol as t o l i t i gat e hi s Pe n n sy l vani a Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct ( PC R A ) pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s t r i ct C our tt hen s t ay ed

1 th e f e d e ra l ha bea s p r o c e e d i n g s s o t h a tM i c h a e l ’ s P CRA c l a i ms coul d be l i t i gat ed. O urC our t af fi r m ed thats t aybyj udgm ent or deri n J une 1997. C . M i chael ’ s P C R A P roce edi ngs A s par tof the PC R A pr ocee di ngs , t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Y o rk C ount yconduct ed evi dent i aryhear i ngs conce r ni ng M i chae l ’ s compet ence t o pl ead gui l t yand t o w ai veM i chae l i ndi cat ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hat h e h ad fi l ed the 2 n e w a f f id a v it “ to s p e e d th e p ro c e s s in g o f h is c a s e b e c a u s e [ ,]

‘ r egar dl es s i f [he ] di d t hatornot[, t he att or ney s r epr ese nt i ng hi m ] w er e s t i l l goi ng to t r yt o pus h t hatt hr ough. ’ ” Mi chael v. H orn , N o . 0 4 -9 0 0 2 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 6 0 6 0 6 9 , a t * 1 n .3 (3 d C ir. Ju ly 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) (G ree n b erg , J. , d issen ti n g ). 7 t he p r es ent at i on of m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . T he C om m onw eal t h t r i al cou rtdeni ed r el i ef on a l l cl ai m s , and M ich a e l, rep re se n ted b yth e D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n , ap p e a led to th e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt
. W h ile th e a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g , M ich a e l f iled a n a f f id a v it i ndi cat i ng t hathe di d notw i s h t he appe al to pr ocee d. T he Pennsy lvani a Supr eme C our tr emanded t he mat t ert o t he tr i al c o u rt to d e ter m in e w h e th e r M ich a e l w a s c o m p e ten t to di s cont i nue the PC R A appea l. T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas h e a rd e x p e rt tes tim o n ya n d e n g a g e d in a c o llo q u yw ith M ich a e l. I tfound M i chae l co m p et ent , and the ca s e r etur ned t o t he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt. B efor e the Supr eme C o u rt coul d r evi ew the C our tof C om m on Pl eas ’ s compe tenc yfi ndi ng, M i chae l fi l ed a ne w a f f id a v it a sk in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt to “ d e c id e th e m e rits o f h is P C R A app eal qu i ckly , essent i al l y repudiat i ng his requ e st to w i t hdr aw t he appe al

. ” C om m onw eal th v. Mi chael , 7 5 5 A

. 2d 1274, 1276 ( Pa. 2000)

. T he C our tt here fo r e addr es s ed the 2 m er i t s of the u n d erl y i ng PC R A appea l , concl udi ng t hat8 M ich a e l’s tria l co u n se l h a d n o t b e e n in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ili n g to in v e s tig a te a n d p re s e n t in d ic ia o f h is a lle g e d in c o m p e te n c y . I d. at 1279–80. I tal s o hel d t hatM i chae l ’ s cl ai m s per t ai ni ng t o t he fai l ur e t o pr es ent m it i gat i ng evi dence coul d nots ucce ed, b e c a u se c o u n se l w a s f

u lf ill in g a n e th ica l d u tyto c o m p lyw ith M ic h a e l’ s d ir e c tio n s . I d.
R ear gum entw as s ought , but M i chae l s ent a l et t ert o t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C o u rt cl ai m i ng t hatt he D efe nder A s s oci at i on w as not act i ng on hi s behal f. T he C ou rt d eni ed re a rg u m e n t.
D . D ist rict C o u rt p ro ce ed ing s a fter M ich a el’s P C R A l i t i gat i on 1 . D ist rict C ou rt p ro ce ed ing s lea d ing u p to t he di s m i s s al order
T hough t he D i s t r i ctC our ts tay ed fe der al l i t i gat i on p e n d in g th e o u tco m e o f th e P C R A p ro c e e d in g s, M ich a e l w ro te t o t he C our ton t hr ee oc cas i ons ( A pr il 1 5, 1997; J ul y9, 1997; an d D ec em b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 0 ) t o ex p res s h is w ish tha t th e C o u rt re f ra in f ro m s ta y in g h is e x e c u tio n . I n Sept ember 2001, t he C our t rul ed t hat t he pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s or di nar i l yat t achi ng t o s t at e- cour tcompet encySee D em os thenes v. B aal , 4 9 5 U

. S

. 7 3 1 , 7 3 5 (1 9 9 0 ) ( per 3 cur i am ). T h e pe ti ti o n raised sign ifi ca n t ch all en g es to M icha el’s 4 s e n te n c e . It c la im e d 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 , i nt er a lia , (1) f

ail ing to inv esti g ate a n d p rese n t M icha el’s i ncompe tency , ( 2) s t i pul at i ng t o t he exi s t ence of aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s , ( 3) s t i pul at i ng fal s el yt hatt her e w er e no 9 d eterm ination s sh o u ld notbe a p p li ed b ec au se th e P C R A co u rt ’s 3 com p et encydet er m i nat i on w as notr evi ew ed byt he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt. T h e D istric t C o u rt a c c o rd in g ly app oint ed D r. R ob ertW et t st ei n, a bo ard- cert i fi ed p sy chiatri st and cl i ni cal pr ofes s or , t o det er m i ne “‘ ( 1) w hetherM r . M i chae l s uffe r [ed] fr om a m ent al di s eas e, di s or derordefe ct ; ( 2) w hether a ment al di s eas e, di s or derordefe ctpr even t [ed] [hi m ] fr om u n d e rsta n d in g h is le g a l p o sitio n a n d th e o p tio n s a v a ilab le to hi m ; and ( 3) w hethera ment al di s ease, d isor derordefe ct p re v e n t[ e d ] [ h im ] f

ro m m a k in g a ra tio n a l ch o ice a m o n g h is opt i ons . ’ ” Mi chael , 2 0 0 4 W L 4 3 8 6 7 8 , a t * 1 0

. A ccor d H aus er v. Moo re , 2 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 2 2 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( percur i am ). T he C our tal s o r eques t ed thatD r . W et t s t ei n cons ider w hether M ich a e l h a d su f

f icie n t ab ili tyto c o n su lt w ith h is atto rn e yw ith a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f

ra tio n a l u n d e rsta n d in g a n d th e a b ili tyto u n d e rs ta n d le g a l p ro c e e d in g s . I n J une 2001, t hough t he compet encyi s s ues had notbeen r es ol ved, t he D efe nderA s s oci at i on fi l ed a 14 6 -pa ge habeas p e tit io n . I n M a y2 0 0 2 , D r. W e ttstein su b m itt e d h is re p o rt,

4m it igating circu m stan ce s, an d (4) c au sing M ic h a e l to en ter a g u iltyp lea . T h e p e tit io n a lso c laim e d (5 ) th a t th e d e a th p e n a lty w as uncons t i tut i onal and thatt he tr i al cour ti m pr oper l y( 6) a llo w e d M ich a e l to p lea d g u ilty , (7 ) d e n ied th e re q u e sts to w i t hdr aw hi s guil t ypl ea, and ( 8) deni ed hi s r eques t s for d if f e re n t co u n se l. 10 w h ich w as b ase d o n h is rev iew o f th e P C R A rec o rd, Y o rk C o u n tyP riso n re c o rd s, sta te p riso n re c o rd s, M ich a e l’s letter s to t he D i s t r i ctC our t , M i chae l ’ s s chool r ecor ds , an af fi davi tfr om M icha el’s si ster, tr an scripts o f a n intervie w w ith M icha el’s br ot her , r epor t s pr epar ed bydoct or s w ho had te s t i fi ed at M i chae l ’ s PC R A hear i ngs , r es ul t s of t es t s t hatD r . W et t s t ei n had p e rso n a llya d m in iste re d , an d e ig h t h o u rs o f in ter v iew s w ith M ich a e l. In th e re p o rt D r. W e tt s te in c o n c lu d e d , “w ith r eas onabl e ps y chi atr i c ce r t ainty , ” thatM i chae l ( 1) w as not s uffe r i ng fr om any m ent al di s eas e, di s or der , or def ec t t hat s ubs t ant i al l yand adversel yaff ect ed hi s abi l i t yt o m ake a deci s i on w i t h r egar d t o pur s ui ng hi s appea l s and ( 2) had the a b ili tyto u n d e rsta n d th e leg a l p ro c e e d in g s a n d to c o n su lt w ith hi s at t or ney s w i th a rea s onabl e degr ee of under s t andi ng. Mi chael , 2004 W L 438678, at*10.
I n J u l y2 0 0 2 , t h e Di s t r i c tCou r ta p p o i n t e d J o s eph C os gr ove, E s q. , t o r epr es entM i chae l , and i ts chedul ed an evi dent i ary hear i ng on D r . W ett s t ei n’ s r epor t
. A tt he Sept ember 2 0 0 2 h e a rin g , the C o u rt’s c o llo q u yw ith M ich a e l re v e a led

— in t he w or ds of the D i s t r i ctC our t

— “a r at i onal under s t andi ng of11 e a c h in q u ir y ” a n d h is d e s ir e to te rm in a te th e p ro c e e d in g . I d. at * 1 1

. 2. T he D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s d i s m i s s al of t he habeas pet i t i on T h e D istri ct C o u rt reli ed h ea v il yo n D r. W ett stei n ’s re p o rt
. I d. at *1 6 (“D r. W ett stei n ’s rep o rtan d test im o n yaf fo rd an ampl e founda t i on for a concl us i on t hat M r . M i chae l ‘ has t he capa ci t yt o appr eci at e hi s pos i t i on and make a r at i onal choi ce w i t h r es pect t o co n ti n u ing o r ab an d o n ing fur t her lit ig a tio n . . . .’” (o m iss io n in o r ig in a l)); s ee al s o i d. at*13–16 (discu ssing D r. W ett stei n ’s rep o rt an d co n clus ion s). T h e C o u rt ac c e p t e d Dr

. W e t t s t e i n ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s a n d wen t o n t o f i n d t hat M i cha el’s de cisi o n s w ere “k n o w ing , rati o n al an d v o l unt ary . ” I d. at*20. I texpl ai n ed that M i chae l ’ s deci s i on t o end hi s l egal pr ocee di ngs had bee n “cons i s t ent l y r epea t ed t o t hi s C our tover a n u m b e r o f

y e a rs. It i s th u s n o t th e p ro d u c t o f u n c o n tro llab le i m pul s i vi t y . ” I

d. O n M a rch 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , the C o u rtd ism issed M icha el’s ha be as p e tit io n a n d d ism iss e d a ll o f M ich a e l’s c o u n se l, in c lu d in g th e D e f

e n d e r A s s o c ia tio n a n d C o s g ro v e . I d. at*24.
E . P roce edi ngs i n our C ourt Fol l ow i ng t he d i sm i ssal of M i chael’ s habeas p eti ti o n, the D efe nderA s s oci at i on fil ed a not i ce of appea l fr om t hat12 d ism issal t o o u r C o u rt
. A lm o st i m m ed iat elyb eg an M icha el’s v a c ill a tio n a s to w h e th e r he w ish e d to w ith d ra w th is a p p e a l. H is fi r s tl et t ert o ourC our t

— on A pr i l 14, 2 0 0 4

— i ndi cat ed thathe di d notw i s h t he appe al t o pr ocee d.
T he C om m onw eal t h m oved fordi s m i s s al

. O n M ay4, 2004, ourC our tcondi t i onal l yg r ant ed thi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , but the e n tryo f th e o rde r w as su sp en d ed fo r t en d ay s to a ff o rd M ich a e l an o p p o rtu n ityto in d ica te h is d e sire to p ro c e e d w ith fede r a l r e v i e w o f h i s c a s e . M i c h a e l f i l e d h i s s e c o n d l e t t e rt he n e x t d a y

— M a y5

— in d ica tin g in ste a d h is de sire to p ro c e e d w ith th is a p p e a l an d h is w is h to h a v e n e w c o u n se l ap p o in ted in h is appea l

. W e def

err ed rul i ng on t he mot i on t o d ism i s s and s c h e d u le d o ra l a rg u m e n t f o r J u n e 2 0 0 4

. Fi ve day s befor e t he or al ar gum ent , w e r ece i ved a l et t er from D r. W et t st ei n. Itread i n p artas fol l ow s:

I have

. . . been i nfor m ed thatM r . M i chae l r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Cou r t o f App e a l s t h a t h e no l ongerw i s hes t o be execut ed, butw ant s t he l egal i s s ues i n hi s cas e pr es ent ed w i t h t he as s i s t ance of new l egal couns el

. B as ed upon hi s r ece ntchange o f m ind , it is m yp sy ch iat ri c o p inion that M r. M i chae l ’ s m ent al s t at e needs fur t herexpl or at i on. H is rep re se n tatio n th a t h e w ish e s to lit ig a te h is cr i m i nal convi ct i on and dea t h s ent ence s houl d be eval uat ed.Sect i on § 848( q) ( 4) ( B ) pr ovi des t hat , “[i ] n anypos tconvi ct i on 5 pr ocee di ng unders ect i on 2254 or2255 of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C ode, s eeki ng t o vacat e o r se tas i de a de ath s ent ence , any d e f e n d a n t w h o is o r b e c o m e s f in a n c iallyu n a b le to o b tain adequa t e r epr es ent at i on . . . s hal l be ent i t l ed t o t he appoi nt m ent o f o n e o r m o re a tt o rne y s . . . . ” 2 1 U .S

. C

. § 8 4 8 (q)(4 )(B ), r epeal ed by T err or i s t D eath Penal t yE nhance m entA ctof 2005, Pub. L

. N o. 109- 177, t i t
. I I , s ubt i t
. B , § 222( c) , 120 S t at
. 192, 2 3 2 (20 0 6 ). 13 Fol l ow i ng or al ar gum ent , w e gr ant ed a Cer t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) on t he ques t i on of w hether the D i s t r i ct C o u rtv iolat ed 21 U

. S. C

. § 8 4 8 (q)(4 )(B ) i n d ism issi n g M icha el’s couns el and, i f the D i s t r ict C o u rt s o err ed, w hethert hi s err or w as h arm less. B u t w e d id n o t ru le on the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s 5 m o tio n to d is m is s th e a p p e a l. O n N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , w e re ce ived M icha el’s th ir d l et t er ; w e construed i tas a pr o s e m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s appea l a n d t o d i s m i s s C o s g r o v e a s h i s c o u n s e l

. O n D e c e m b e r 3 , we ent er ed a n o rde rdi r ect i ng couns el foral l par t i es t o fi l e a r es pons e t o t he pro se m ot i on. I n r es pons e, C os gr ove i ndi cat ed o n D e c e m b e r 2 0 th a t M ich a e l w a s “ a n y th in g b u t s tea d f a st in h is d e s ir e to te rm in a te th is a p p e a l o r m yre p re s e n ta tio n o f h im .” O n Ja n u a ry5 , 2 0 0 5 , i n a n o th e r a ttem p t to a sc e rta in M i c h a e l ’ s p o s i t i o n , t h e p a n e l e n t e r e d a n o r d e rt h a tw ar ned M icha el as f

o ll o w s (em p h asis in o ri g inal):14 I f y o u di s m i s s t hi s appea l y ou w i l l w ai ve a ll fu rth e r rig h t to p u rsu e th is a p p e a l. A s a re su lt y ou m ay al s o be deni ed anyfur t herr evi ew of y our c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e b y th is o r a n y o th e r c o u rt. A d d iti o n a lly , in th e f

u tu re , y o u m a yb e leg a lly pr ohi bi t ed fr om fi l i ng a new habea s pet i t i on or o th e r p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I

n s hor t , yourdis m is s al of this appeal m ay t er m i nat e any f ur therj udi ci al r evi ew of yourconvi ct i on and s ent ence . O n F e b r u a r y2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , M ich a e l se n t h is f o u rth lette r to o u rC o u r t
. I n i th e i n d i c a t e d t h a th e h a d r e a d o u rJ a n u a r y 5 o r d e r, an d th a t h e f

u llyu n d e rsto o d th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f h is w ai ver . M i chae l not ed t hat he had cons ul t ed w i t h couns el , and th a t h e n o n e th e le s s w is h e d to w ith d ra w h is a p p e a l.
B u t th e f o llo w in g d a y , a f

te r a m e e tin g w ith C o s g ro v e , a r e q u e s t wa s f

i l e d t o d e f

e r a n y c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

t h a tl e t t e rf

o rt wo w e e k s s o t h a t Mi c h a e l c o u l d f u r t h e rc o n s u l tw i t h c o u n s e l

. We d e f e rre d o u r de c isio n to p e rm it co u n se l ti m e to m e e t o n c e a g a in w ith M ic h a e l. O n M a rc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , C o sg ro v e su b m itt e d a d o c u m e n t, ent i t l ed “Repor tof C ouns el , ” i ndi cat i ng t hata l i t i gat i on pl an w as underdevel opm entforM i chae l and as ki ng us t o pr ocee d w i t h a re s ol ut i on of the ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he C O A

. B ut10 d ay s lat er, M icha el sen t t o u s h is fift h let ter, ind icati n g h is de sir e t o di s m i s s hi s appea l

. A s i xt h l et t erfol l ow ed on M ay23, 2005,J udge G r eenberg di s s ent ed, s t at i ng t hathe w oul d have 6 d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. 15 re ite ra tin g M ic h a e l’ s re q u e s t to d is m is s h is a p p e a l. O n Ju n e 2 , o u r C o u rtissue d the f o ll o w ing o rde r: I nas m uch as t he pet i t i oneri s r epr es ent ed bycouns el , t he pr o s e l et t er s t o w i t hdr aw t he appea l ar e de n ied. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der ent er ed M ar ch 10, 2004, i s vaca t ed t o t he ext ent t hati tdi s m i s s ed J os eph M

. C os gr ove, E s q. , as c o u n se l, gr a n ted M ich a e l’s m o tio n to d ism iss h is habea s corpus pet i t i on and vac at ed the s t ayof exec ut i on. T he mat t eris remanded forfur t her pr ocee di ngs t o det er m i ne w hetherhabea s corpus r el i ef i s w arr ant ed. W e expr es s no opi ni on on su ch q u esti o n s as w h ethe r M icha e l’ s claim s are ex h au sted , p roc ed u rall y b arred o r m erit o ri o u s. In the e v en t th at M icha el f ile s an yfu rth er pro se m ot i ons t o di s m i s s hi s pet i t i on, w e ur ge the D is tr ic t C o u rt to d e n yth e m s u m m a ri ly. S e e Sm ith v. A r m ontr out , 8 6 5 F .2 d 1 5 1 5 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); S t. P i er r e v. C ow an , 2 1 7 F

. 3 d 9 3 9 , 9 4 9 -95 0 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). 6
T he C om m on w eal t h fi l ed a pe t i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng orr ehea r i ng e n b a n c . W e fi l ed an or derdeny i ng t he pet i t i on onJ udge G r eenbe r g agai n di s s ent ed fr om t he d en ial of pane l 7 re h e a ri n g . Mi cha elv. H orn , N o. 04- 9002, 2005 W L 1606069, at *1

– 8 (3d C ir

. Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 5 ) (G ree n b erg , J. , d issen ti n g ). J udge G r eenbe r g concurr ed t o emphasi ze that he vi ew ed 8 w hat everhad happe ned i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tr es pect i ng M i chae l ’ s vaci l l at i ons as “bey ond t he s cope of ourcert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y . ” Mi chael , 1 4 4 F e d . A p p x . a t 2 6 4 (G re e n b e rg , J ., concurr i ng)

. J udge N y gaar d di s s ent ed beca us e he bel i eved that t he June 2 order w as corr ect and , t o the ext ent i t w as am biguou s, c o u ld b e s u p p le m e n te d

. I d. at 2 6 4

– 6 5 (N y g aa rd, J. , d issen ti n g ). 16 J ul y7, 2005, and the mandat e i s s ued on J ul y8. 7
T he pane l r eca l l ed t he m andat e on A ugus t10, 2005, and g ra n ted p a n e l re h e a rin g , ex p lain in g th a t th e Ju n e 2 o rd e r “ le[ f t] t he D i stri ct C ou rt w i t h l i t t l e gu i dan ce i n this com pli cate d case as t o ourr eas ons for r emandi ng t he ca s e forfur t herpr ocee di ngs and, i ndeed, [di d] noti dent i fyw haterr or( i f any ) t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o m m i tte d in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d e c is io n a p p e a le d .” Mi cha elv. H

orn , 1 4 4 F ed

. A p p x . 2 6 0 , 2 6 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). 8
O n Sept ember 19, 200 5 , M i chae l s enty etanotherl et t er to o u r C o u rt, statin g th e f o llo w in g : “ A f

ter h a v in g re c e n tly sp o k e n to m y a tt o rn e y , Jo se p h C o sg ro v e , I am a d v isin g th is cour tt hatI w i s h for no fur t herappea l s r egar di ng m ys ent ence of death. ” O r a l a r g u m e n t w a s s c h e d u l e d f o r J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 0 6

. We17 r ec eived a l et t erfr om D r . W et t s t ei n on J anuary4. H e w r ot e, among ot hert hi ngs , t he fol l ow i ng:

I under s t and thatt he C i r cui tC our thas d e c id e d to re c o n sid e r th e c a se o f H u b e rt M ich a e l, w hom I pr evi ous l yeval uat ed fo r the D i s t r i ct C o u rt. T h e f

a c t th a t M r. M ich a e l h a s a g a in v a c ill a ted a s to w h e th e r h e sh o u ld c o n tin u e w ith hi s curr en tappea l r ai s es a conc ern as t o w hether a n y w a iv e r o f

h is a p p e a l o f

h is d e a th se n ten c e is val i d and vol unt ary . M y pr evi ous r epor tt o t he D istric t C o u rt w a s p re m is e d in p a rt o n h is appar ents t eadf

as t nes s w hi ch has now di s s i pat ed. A ccor di ngl y , befor e anydeci si on i s m ade re g a rd in g M r. M ic h a e l’ s w a iv e r o f h is ri g h ts , a f u rt h e r e v a lu a tio n is w a rr a n te d

. T hen , o n J anuary10, w e r ece i ved anotherl et t erfr om M i chae l ( d ated J anuary9)

. I tr ead, “I w antt he C our tt o know t hatJ os eph C os gr ove i s bot h m yfr i end a n d m y law y er , and I w a n t h im to re m a in m yla w y e r f o r t h e d u ra tio n o f

th is m a tte r.”
M i chae l s eta fi nal l et t eron February6. I tr ead:
T hi s l et t er i s t o i nfor m t he cour t t h at I, H u b e rt L . M ich a e l, Jr., w ish f o r n o f u rth e r a p p e a ls r egar di ng m ys entenc e of de ath. Pl eas e do not m i s cons t rue myl as t let ter t o t hi s cour tw her e IA C O A m ayi s s ue onl yupon “a su b stant i al s how i ng of the 9 d e n i a l o f a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t
. ” 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 )

. I f a “d is t r i ctcour thas r ej ect ed the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s on t he m e rits, th e sh o w in g re q u ire d to sa tisf y§ 2 2 5 3 (c ) is stra ig h tf o rw a rd : T h e peti t i on er m ustdem on strat e that r easona b le

18 sta ted th a t I w o u ld lik e Jo se p h C o sg ro v e to cont i nue t o r epr es entm e. Y e s, I w o u ld lik e Jo se p h C o sg ro v e to cont i nue t o r epr es ent m e foras l ong as I am befor e anycour tr egar di ng anycr im i nal m a tter. . . . H o w e v e r, I a sk f o r n o f u rth e r a p p e a ls r egar di ng m ys ent ence of dea t h.
D r. W ett stei n a lso sen t a l ett er, r ef erring to M icha el’s February 6 l et t er , i n w hi ch D r . W et t s t ei n r ei t er at ed thathe “cont i nue[s ] t o bel i eve thatfur t her eval uat i on . . . i s w arr ant ed b ef o re a n y d ec isi o n is m ad e reg ard ing a w aive r o f M r. M icha el’s c u rr e n t a p p e a l.”

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew Th e Di s t r i c t Co u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U. S. C. §§ 2241 and 2254. A s not ed, ourC our tgr ant ed a CO A on w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our t vi ol at ed 21 U

. S. C

. § 848( q) ( 4) ( B ) by di s m i s s i ng M i chae l ’ s couns el , s o w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1291 and 2253. 9j ur i s t s w oul d fi nd t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s as s es sm en t of t he cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s debat abl e orw r ong. ” Slack v

. McD ani el , 5 2 9 U

. S

. 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). W h ere , as h ere , th e D is tr ictC o u rt has rej ect ed the cl ai m s on proced ural groun ds, t he p ri soner m ust es t abl i s h “thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hether t he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtand that j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hether t he di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” I d. 19 III

. D i s cus s i on A . C an w e di s m i s s M i chael ’ s appeal ? Be f o r e we c a n e v e n c o n s i d e rt h e me r i t s i n t h i s c a s e , we m us tdeal w i t h w hetherw e s houl d di s m i s s M i chae l ’ s appea l al t ogether , forM i chae l has i ndi cat ed s ever al t i m es t hat he does n o t w ish h is a p p e a l to p ro c e e d

. T o re c a p , w e h a v e lette rs to th is eff ectdat ed A pr i l 14 and N ovem ber26 i n 2004; February22, M a r c h 2 8 , M a y 2 3 , a n d S e p t e m b e r1 9 i n 2 0 0 5 ; a n d F e b ru a r y 6 in 2 0 0 6 . O n th e o th e r h a n d , M ich a e l ex p re ss e d a d e sire f o r h is a p p e a l to p ro c e e d o n M a y5 , 2 0 0 4 . C o s g r o v e re p o rte d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 th a t M ich a e l w a s “ a n y th in g b u t ste a d f a st in h is d e sire to ter m in a te th is ap p e a l,” an d M ich a e l m a d e n o e f f o rt to have ourJ une 2005 or der ( s endi ng t he ca s e bac k t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t ) r econs i der ed orap p ea le d. A nd hi s l et t erof J anuary9, 20 06 , sugg est ed that he w anted C osgrove t o “r em ain [his ] l aw y erfort he dur at i on of thi s m at t er . ”I ti s al s o w el l s ett led t hata def endanthas a r i ghtt o w ai ve 10 re p re s e n ta tio n . S e e Fa re tta v . C a lif o rn ia , 422 U

. S. 806, 834–36 ( 1975) ( es t abl i s hi ng t he ri ght of cr i m i nal defe ndant s t o pr ocee d w i t houtcouns el w hen theyel ectt o do s o vol unt ar i l yand in tellig e n tly ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. St ubbs , 281 F

. 3 d 109, 1 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 20 U n d er F e d era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 2 (b), a p pe a l s “ ma yb e d i s mi s s e d o n t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s mo t i o n o n t e r ms agr eed t o byt he part i es orfi xed byt he court
. ” I n U ni t ed Stat es v. H am m er , w e sta ted th a t w e h a d “ d isc re tio n to g r a n t, o r to deny , ” a de fenda n t’ s m ot i on fordi s m i s s al

. 226 F. 3d 229, 234 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). 10
S o w e can d i sm i ss M i chael’ s appea l

. B ut w e m ustfi rs t a d d re ss w h e th e r M ich a e l is c o m p e ten t to w ith d ra w h is a p p e a l.
B . Is M ich a e l co m p e te n t to d ism iss h is a p p e a l?
T he D i s t r i ctC our t found M i chae l compet ent i n i t s 2004 o p inion

. N o rm all y , w e w o u ld p resu m e tha t M ic h a el’s c o m p e te n c yc o n tin u e s to th e p re s e n t. S e e , e. g. , Loncharv. Thom as , 5 8 F

. 3 d 5 8 8 , 5 8 9 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) ( percur i am ); Sm ith v . A rm o n tro u t ( Sm ith V

II ) , 865 F. 2d 1502, 1505 ( 8t h C i r . 1988) ( en banc )

. B ut t he pr es um pt i on of cont i nui ng compet encydoes n o t h o ld if

“ s o m e s u b s ta n tia l r e a s o n to th e c o n tr a ry a p p e a rs .” Sm ith V II, 865 F. 2d at1505.21 W e bel i eve that s uch a “s ubs t ant i al r eas on” appe ar s her e. I n t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs , D r . W et t s t ei n ’s ro l e w as par t i cul ar l yi m por t ant ; hi s r epor t and t es t i m ony w er e t he bas es fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s co m p eten cyfin d ing

. T h e C o u rt expr es s ed hi gh r egar d forD r . W et t s t ei n i n i t s opi ni on, cal l i ng hi m “exc ept i onal l yw el l

- qual i fi ed, ” and s t at i ng t hat“[t ] her e w as no evi dence of pos s i bl e bi as on [hi s ] par t ” and that“[t ] her e ca n al s o be no di sp u te a bout[hi s ] qual i fi cat i ons . ” Mi chael , 2004 W L 438678, at *20. B ut D r . W et t s t ei n s ubs equent l yhas t hr i ce t aken the posi t i on t hat M i chae l s houl d be r eeva l uat ed. A s not ed a b o v e , af ter lea rn in g o f

M ich a e l’s d e sire to p u rsu e th is a p p e a l, h e w rote in Ju n e 20 0 4 that “it is m y p sy ch iat ri c op inion that M r. M ich a e l’s m e n tal s tate n e e d s f u rth e r e x p lo ra tio n . H is r epr es ent at i on t hat he w i s hes t o l i t i gat e hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i on an d d ea th se n tenc e sh o u ld b e e v alua ted.” In Jan u ary 2 0 0 6 , D r. W ett stei n w rote a g ain, st ati n g that, b ec au se o f M ic h a el’s vaci l l at i ons , a conce r n had been r ai s ed “as t o w hether any w a i v e ro f

h i s a p p e a l o f h i s d e a t h s e n t e n c e i s v a l i d a n d v o l u n t a r y. M ypr evi ous r epor tt o t he D i s t r i ct C our t w as pr emi s ed i n par ton h i s a p p a r e n t s t e a d f

a s t n e s s [ , ] wh i c h h a s n o w d i s s i p a t e d

. ” He w r ot e a thi r d t i m e— i n February2006— t o s ugges t“furt her eval uat i on. ” T hi s s econd- gues s i ng by t he expert w ho w as the foundat i on of the D i s t r i ctC o ur t ’ s compet encyfi ndi ng cons t i tut es a “s ubs t ant i al r eas on” nott o pr es um e cont i nui ng compet encyher e. T h e r es ul ti n Sm ith V

II i s n o tt o t h e c o n t r a r y . Ther e, Sm i t h had cha nged hi s m i nd aboutw hetherhe w i s hed t o pur s ue22 his ha bea s pr ocee di ng, appar en tl ybeca us e he ha d got t en m a rr ie d

. Sm ith V

II, 865 F. 2d at 1504. T he en banc E ig h th C i r c u i tCou r th e l d t h a th i s c h a n g e o f p o s i t i o n d i d n o tw ar r ant r eopeni ng pr ocee di ngs fort he purpos e of hol di ng an addi t i onal c o m p e te n c yh e a ri n g . I

d. at 1 5 0 6

. T h e C o u rtcit ed fo r sup p o rt th e c o n sp icu o u s a b se n c e o f “ a n y a lleg a tio n s o f

n e w p sy c h iatric exami nat i ons or new conduct by Sm i t h, ot her t han t he f ac ts of hi s m arr i age and hi s change s of m i nd. ” I d. at1504. A l t hough af fid av it s fro m three p sy ch iat ri sts sup p o rt i ng rea sses sm en t w ere befo re the C ou rt , t hese did no tsuffice ei t her. N o n e of these ps y chi atr i s t s had eve rexami ned Sm i t h, t hey had al l us ed l anguage t hatw as “ca r eful l yhedged an d t ent at i ve, ” and the C o u rt cons i der ed the di s pos i t i ve i s s ue t o be “one of comm on s ens e and g o o d m or al j udgm ent ” r athert han “of m edi cal expert i s e. ” I

d. a t 1 5 0 5

. B ut h e r e Dr

. W e t t s t e i n h a s e x a mi n e d M i c h a e l , a nd t hor oughl y . M or eover , M i chae l ’ s pr evi ous s t eadf as t ness had been a key bas i s for D r . W et t s t ei n’ s concl us i on of compet ence . D r . W et t s t ei n has not now decl ar ed M i chae l i ncompet ent , buthe has cal l ed fora new eval uat i on, in lang uage thati s nei t her hedged nort ent at i ve. T he pr i nci pal s our ce f ort he D ist ri ct C o u rt ’s c o m p eten cyfin d ing h as w av ere d b ase d o n M icha el’s pos t
- eval uat i o n co n duct

. W e ther efor e do notappl yt he p resu m p ti o n o f c o n ti n u ing co m p eten cyto the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2004 fi ndi ng. A n a p p e a l m a yn o t b e w ith d ra w n if th e p riso n e r is23 in c o m p e te n t. S e e id

. at1506–07 ( “I f s om eone de ci des t hathe ors he pr efe r s t o acqui es ce i n a pr es um pt i vel y l aw ful j udgm ent o f a co u rt , this de cisi o n sh o u ld b e re sp ec ted, un less that p erso n ’s m ent al condi t i on i s s o abnor m al t hati tdoes notm eetacc ept ed leg a l re q u ire m e n ts.” ); c

f. R ees v. P eyton , 384 U

. S. 312, 313–14 (19 6 6 ) ( percur i am ) ( r equir i ng a pr i s oner ’ s compet encyt o be d e ter m in e d b e f

o re d e c id in g w h e th e r to a llo w a p riso n e r to w i t hd ra w his cert i orari p e tit io n ); H am m er , 226 F. 3d at232 & n. 2 ( not i ng t hatw e w er e s at isfied w i t h H amm er ’ s compet ency befor e gr ant i ng hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s hi s appea l )

. I n R ees v. P eyton , the S u p re m e C o u rt f a c e d th e q u e stio n o f

h o w it sh o u ld pr ocee d w hen R ees , w ho had bee n co n vi ct ed of murde rand s ent ence d t o death, di r ect ed hi s couns el t o w i t hdr aw hi s pet i t i on fo r cert io ra ri a n d to f o rg o a n yf

u rth e r f e d e ra l habeas p roc ee d ing s. 3 8 4 U

. S

. 3 1 2

. R ee s’s co u n sel ad v ised the C o u rt t hat “he cou l d not con sci enti ou sl yacced e t o these i nst ruct i on s” w ith o u t R e e s ’s re c e iv in g a p s y c h ia tr ic e v a lu a tio n . I d. at313. R ees w as exami ned, b u t ex p er t s di d notagr ee on w hetherhe w a s in c o m p e te n t. I

d. Th e Cou r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i ct C ou rth ad to m ak e a d eterm ination reg ard ing R ee s ’ s compet ency befor e i tcoul d m ake a deci s i on aboutt he cert i orari pet i t i on. B e c a u se h is “ m e n tal c o m p e ten c e [ w a s] o f p rim e im p o rta n c e ” to t he ques t i on of w hether w i t hdr aw al w oul d be al l ow ed , t he D i s t r i ct C our tw as di r ect ed t o “make a j udi ci al det er m i nat i on as to R e e s’ m e n tal co m p e ten c e a n d re n d e r a re p o rt o n th e m a tter to [the Supr eme C our t ]

. ” I d. at 313–14. T he C our tfur t her di r ect ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt o det erm ine w hetherR ees “ha[ d] capa ci t yt o appr eci at e hi s pos i t i o n and m ake a r at i onal choi ceA s a lre a d ym e n tio n e d , h o w e v e r, th is s e c tio n w a s re p e a led in 11 M ar ch 2006. Te rr or i s tD eath Penal t yE nhance m entA ctof 2005, 24 w i t h r es pectt o cont i nui ng orabandoni ng fur t herl i t i gat i on oron t he o ther hand w hetherhe [w as ] s uffe r i ng fr om a ment al d ise a se , d is o r d e r , o r d e f e c t w h ich m a ysu b sta n tiallya f f e c t h is capa ci t y . ” I

d. at314. If w e h a v e a n yd o u b ts a b o u t M ic h a e l’ s c o m p e te n c y , R ees r equi r es us t o r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforanother co m p eten cyh ea ri n g b ef o re w e d ism iss his a p p ea l. D r. W ett stei n ’s l ett ers d o g ive rise to d o u b ts ab o u t M icha el’s c o m p e te n c y ; th u s w e re m a n d to d e ter m in e if M ich a e l is compet ent t o m ake the dec i s i on t o di s m i s s t he appe al

. U pon t he D istric t C o u rt’s m a k in g its d e ter m in a tio n , itsh o u ld se n d u s its r epor ton t he i s s ue s et t i ng fo rt h i t s concl us i on and the r eas ons f o r it. If M i chael i s agai n fo un d co m petent , and i f he a ga in w i shes t o w i t hd raw his app eal , th en w e m ustob eyhis w i shes. C f

. Jones v. B ar nes , 463 U

. S. 745, 7 5 1 (1983) ( not i ng t hatan “ac cus ed has t he ul t i m at e aut hor i t y ” t o deci de w hethert o “t ake an ap p ea l”). * * * * *
W e ther efor e r emand t hi s m at t er t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor anothercompet encyhear i ng. B ydoi ng s o, w e do n o t rul e on wh e t h e rt o d i s mi s s t h i s a p p e a l o r on t h e 2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 4 8 (q )(4 )(B ) iss u e . M ich a e l h a s in d ica ted th a t h e w a n ts 11Pub. L

. N o. 109- 177, t i t
. I I , s ubt i t
. B , § 222( c) , 120 S t at
. 192, 2 3 2 (20 0 6 ). 25 C os gr ove as hi s at t or ney , and C os gr ove’ s cont i nued r epr es ent at i on i s per m i s s i bl e on r emand w i t houtan or derfr om th e D istric t C o u rt. W e not e that , i f M i chae l i s agai n found comp etent , he w i l l have one l as toppor tuni t yt o have hi s appea l hear d. A c c o rd in g ly , th e D istric t C o u rt, i f M ich a e l is f

o u n d c o m p e ten t, sh o u ld as k h im the f

o ll o w ing q u esti o n : “D o y o u w ish the C o u rt of A ppeal s t o di s m i s s t he ap p ea l t aken i n y ourname fr om t he or derent er ed i n t hi s C our tdi s m i s s i ng t he habeas cor pus pet i t i on fi l ed i n y our cas e?” I f t he ans w er i s y es , w e s hal l abi de byt hat a n sw e r a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng. I jo in in Ju d g e A m b r o ’ s o p in io n re m a n d in g th is c a se to t he di s t r i ctcour tfort he l i m i t ed purpos es of m aki ng another d e t e r mi n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g M i c h a e l ’ s c o mp e t e n c yb e f o r e we d e ter m in e w h e th e r t o d ism iss th is ap p e a l a n d to a sc e r ta in if M i chael s t i ll w a n ts us t o d i sm i ss the ap peal. N evert heles s, becau se I have r es er vat i ons r egar di ng w hatw e ar e doi ng and beca us e i n j oi ni ng t he opi ni on I am notbei ng cons i s t entw i t h t he p o sitio n I to o k tw ice e a rl ie r o n th is a p p e a l, I w rite th is c o n c u rr in g o p in io n to e x p la in w h yI a m d o in g s o .26 Att h e o u t s e tI wa n tt o p o i n to u tt h a tt h e r e a r e t wo m ot i ons pendi ng t o di s m i s s t he appeal : t he r es pondent s ’ m ot i on and M i chae l ’ s cons t ant l yr epea t ed pr o s e l et t er m ot i on. I focus on M i chae l ’ s m o t i on beca us e i ti s t he keyt o t hi s appea l i nas m uch as i f he ha d w ant ed the appe al t o be hea r d on t he me r i t s i t l i k e l y a l r e a d ywo u l d h a v e b e e n h e a r d a n d d e c i d e d

. On t he oth er hand, unl es s cons t r ai ned byM i chae l ’ s l et t ert o us on M ay5, 2004, i f he i s compet ent t o m ake the dec i s i on t o as k us to d ism iss th is a p p e a l, I ag re e w ith Ju d g e A m b ro th a t w e sh o u ld dis m i ss t he appea l

. I do no t see ho w w e cou l d do o th erw i se in a sm u c h , as I w ill e x p lain b e lo w , M ich a e l d id n o t tak e th is appea l

. See J ones v. B arnes , 463 U

. S. 745, 751, 103 S. C t
. 3308, 3312 ( 1983) ( “[T] he ac cus ed has t he ul t i m at e author i t yt o m ake [t he] decis i on [ ] .

. . w hethert o . . . t ake an ap peal. ”); see al so Far et t a v. C al i forni a, 422 U

. S. 806, 834- 36, 9 5 S

. C t
. 2525, 2 5 4 0 -41 (19 7 5 ).
T he l et t er of M ay 5, 2004, w hi ch coul d pr eventus fr om sa tisf y in g th e o b li g a tio n th a t w e o th e rw ise w o u ld h a v e to dis m i ss thi s appea l , asked u s t o h ear hi s appea l on t he m eri t s. B u t i f w e d ec li n e to d ism iss this ap p ea l b y rea so n o f M icha el’s M a y5 , 2 0 0 4 lette r, w h ich is h is o n lyc o m m u n ica tio n to th is c o u rt re q u e stin g th a t w e e n ter tain th e a p p e a l, w e w o u ld h a v e to di s r egar d M i chae l ’ s r eques t on s i x occa s i ons aft er M ay5, 2004, t hatw e di s m i s s hi s appea l

. I n m y v i ew , r egar dl es s of w hat m ig h t b e a p p ro p ria te if an a p p e llan t re p e a ted ly c h a n g e s h is pos i t i on on w hether h is c ase s houl d be hea r d on t he mer i t s , or has notr epea t edl ys t at ed thathe w ant s t he appe al di s m i s s ed, s ee27 S t. P ierre v . C o w an , 2 1 7 F

. 3 d 9 3 9 , 9 4 9 -50 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ); S m ith v . A rm o n tr o u t, 8 6 5 F

. 2 d 1 5 1 5 , 1 5 1 6 (8th C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ), in a sm u c h a s M ich a e l h a s n o t tak e n a se e sa w a p p ro a c h o n h is re q u e st th a t w e d ism iss th e a p p e a l, ne ith e r S t. P ier re n o r S m ith i s a pr ece dent t hat coul d s uppor t a dec i s i on t o denyhi s m ot i on to d ism iss th is a p p e a l. R a th e r, itis c lea r th a t if M ich a e l is compet entand w e do notdi s m i s s t hi s appeal w e w oul d notbe fo ll o w ing th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s direc ti o n in Jo n es th at a c o u rt m us tr ecogni ze thatt he ac cus ed deci des w hethert o t ake a n a p p e a l. T h u s, e v e n th o u g h a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls o rd in a rily exer ci s es di s cr et i on i n det er m i n ing w hethert o di s m i s s an ap p ea l, see U n it ed S tat es v . H am m er, 22 6 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 4 (3d C ir

. 2000) , i n t hi s cas e i ts eems c l eart o m e thatw e d o nothave d isc re tio n to d e n y M ich a e l’s re q u e st o r, if w e d o , tha t w e w o u ld a b u se o u r d isc re tio n if

w e d id n o t g ra n t h is re q u e st. I ti s hi ghl ys i gni fi ca n t , i ndeed r emar kabl e, w i t h r es pect t o t he t enuous natur e of t hes e pr ocee di ngs , t hatM i chae l di d not d e c id e to tak e a n a p p e a l in th is c a se in th e f irst p lac e a n d , in fac t , thi s cas e neve r s houl d have r eac hed t hi s cour t
. T hus , t he actual q u es t i on befor e us i s w hethera def endantm aycaus e an app eal fi l ed in h i s n am e w i t ho ut his authori ty by som eon e el se t o be di s m i s s ed. I n t hi s cas e, t he C api t al H abea s C orpus U ni tof the D ef en d e r A sso ciati o n o f P h il ad elph ia, w ith o u t M icha el’s author i zat i on, fi l ed the appeal fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derof M ar ch 10, 2004, gr ant i n g M i chae l ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he h ab ea s co rpu s p eti ti o n . T h u s, this case tru lyis ex tr ao rdin ary beca us e the C api t al H abea s C orpus U ni t fi l ed t hi s unauthor i zedThe Capital Ha beas Corpus Unit filed its notice of appeal solely on 12 behalf of Michae l and did not rec ite in the notice of appeal that it was appealing on behalf of itself. I n acc ordanc e with ou r p ractice the cler k of this court ente red a

n order on April 13, 2004, appointing the Capital Habe as Corpus Unit “to continue to represent” Michael on this appeal, thus demonstratingthat the cler k did not know th at the district court had dismi ssed the Capital Ha beas Corpus Unit as counsel for Michae l. It is understandablethat the cler k did not know that the dis tric t c ourt ha d dis mis se d th eCa pit a l H a be a s Co rp us Un it inas much as the Capital Ha beas Corpus Unit filed thenotice of appeal. In any

event the c lerk made the appointment afte r the Capital Hab e a s Co r

p u s Un it f il e d th ea p p e a l s o th ec ler

k ’ s o rd e r c o u ld n ot have g iven it the authority to file the notice o f ap p eal. The appointment did not last long fo r a pane l of this court revoke d it on May 4, 2004. 28 appea l i n t he name of an appel l ant w hom t he di s t r i ctcour thad found t o be compet ent , fr om an or dert hatt he ap p ell an t ha d s oughtand obt ai ned and fr om w hi ch, qui t e natur al l y , he di d not w a n t to a p p e a l.
M or eover , t her e i s y etanotherextr aor di naryfac tabout t hi s appea l

. T he C api t al H abea s C orpus U ni tfi l ed the appe al even t h o u g h t he di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s M ar ch 10, 2004 or der di s m i s s i ng t he pet i t i on for ha beas corpus al s o di s m i s s ed the C api t al H abea s C orpus U ni tand al l i t s at t or ney s as couns el for Mi c h a e l , Mi c h a e l v . H o r n , N o . 3 : CV

- 9 6

- 1 5 5 4 , 2 0 0 4 WL 438678, at *24 ( M

. D

. Pa. M ar . 10, 2004) , and nei t herw e nort he di s t r i ctcour teverhas s t ay ed thator der

. A ccor di ngl y , t he 12 C a p ital H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it ac ted w ith o u t a u th o rityw h e n it29 fi l ed thi s appea l i n an a ttem pt t o frust rat e M i chael’ s w i shes. T he re a l i t yo f

t h e s i tu a t i o n c o u l d n o tb e c l e a r e r . Th e Ca p i t al H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it, ra th e r th a n re p re se n tin g M ic h a e l, i ts s u p p o s e d c l i e n t , wa s r e p r e s e n t i n g i t s e l f a n d a d v a n c i n g i t s o wn a g e n d a w h e n it file d th is a p p e a l.
M i chae l m ade the s i tuat i on cl eart o t hi s cour tatt he out s et of thi s ap p ea l w hen he w r ot e an unda t ed l et t ert o C hi ef J udge Sci r i ca thatt hi s cour tr ece i ved on A pr i l 14, 2004, s t at i ng as foll ow s: M yname i s H uber tL

. M i chae l , J r . I r ece nt l yhad m ydeath w arr ants i gned byt he govern o r of Penns y l vani a. I am not appea l i ng m ys ent ence . I w as r ece nt l yabl e t o gett he att or ney s , w i t h t he D efe nderA s s oci at i on of Phi l adel phi a, di s m i s s ed f ro m try in g to re p re se n t m e in a n yc a p a c ity . T h is w as or der ed byJ udge Thom as V anas ki e of the U .S . D istric t C o u rt. I a m n o w wr i t i n g y o u b e c a u s e I k n o w t h a tt he c o u r t s h a d n o t h e a r d t h e l a s t o f t h e s e a t t o r n e ys w ith th e C a p ital H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it.
T hes e att or ney s are notauthor i zed bym e, ort he c o u rt s , to f

ile a n yp e titio n s , e tc ., o n m yb e h a lf. I as k t hi s cour tt o not r ecogni ze any pet i t i ons fi l edIam uncertain whe n Michae l found out that th e C apit al Habe as 13 Corpus Unit filed the appe al, and thus I am uncertain if he w as aw are that it had filed the appeal before he wrote the April 14, 2004 letter. Ido know, however, from the cer tificate of serviceattache d to the no tic eof a pp e a l th at th eatto rn e y

fo r theCa

pit al H a be a s Co rp us Un it serve d the notice of

appeal solely

on a P en n sylvania Assistant Attorney General a

nd that he did so by

mail on April 8, 2004. 30 b yth e se a tto rn e y s o r a n yo th e r in d iv id u a l.
I w oul d al s o l i ke t o s t at e fort he re cor d t he I am on e-hund red percentm ental l y c om petent
. A s I pl ed gui l t yt o hom i ci de, i n the C our t s of C om m on P l eas, m ym ental st at e i s the o nlyaven ue fo r these at t or ney s t o pur s ue.

L et ’s st op t his l egal m erry -go-r ou nd byt hese at t orney s. A s any one ca n s ee, and as can be s ai d w i t h r es pect to all of M i chae l ’ s co rr es pondence t o t hi s cour t , t he l et t erw as compl et el ycl earand cohe r entand w as nott he p rod u ct of a n i n c o m p e t e n to r m e n t a l l y d i s tu rb e d a u t h o r . Q u i t e t o t h e c o n t r a r y, M i chae l demonst r at ed i n hi s A pr i l 14, 2004 l et t ert hat he had a n exce l l entgr as p of the s i tuat i on confr on ti n g hi m as t he C api t al H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it a lre a d y h a d f iled its u n a u th o riz e d a p p e a l. 13 A ccor di ngl y , i ti s cl eart hatfr om t he veryt i m e that C api t al H a b e a s C o r p u s U n it file d th is a p p e a l, th e p ro c e e d in g s in th is31 cour thave be en i r r egul ar as t he appe al nevers houl d have be en t aken.
I ti s i m por tantt o r emem bert hatt he appe al fol l ow ed di s t r i c t c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s i n whi c h t h e c o u r t d i s mi s s e d t he pet i t i on atM i chae l ’ s r equ es tonl yaft ert he mostm et i cul ous cons i der at i on of hi s compet ency . T he cour ts t ar t ed i t s opi ni on d ism iss in g th e p e tit io n b yin d ica tin g th a t “[ a ]t issu e is th is m at t er i s w hether death- s ent ence d H uber t M i chae l i s compet ent and has know i ngl y , r at i onal l y , and vol unt ar i l ychos en t o w ai ve

. . . a col l at er al chal l enge t o hi s s t at e courtconvi ct i on and s ent ence . ” M i chae l v. H or n, N o. 3: C V

- 96- 1554, 2004 W L 4 3 8 6 7 8 , a t * 1 (M .D

. P a . M a r. 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 ). T h e c o u r t e n d e d its op i nion exp l ai ning as foll ow s:

T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r M r. M ich a e l is c o m p e ten t to d e c id e to d is m iss c o u n se l an d th is h a b e a s c o rp u s p ro c e e d in g , this C o u rt so u g h t to pr ovi de ‘ a cons t i tut i onal l yadequa t e fa ct
- fi ndi ng in q u ir yto m a k e a re lia b le d e te rm i n a t i o n . . . .’ M ata v
. Jo h n so n , 2 1 0 F

. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 (5th C ir

. 2000)

. T hat pr oces s i ncl uded ( 1) a c u rr ent exam i nat i on bya hi ghl yqual i fi ed expe r t[D r. R ober tW et t s t ei n] , ( 2) an oppor tuni t yfort he p arti es t o pr es entper t i nentevi dence , and ( 3) an ex am ination o f M r. M icha el in op en c o u rt conce r ni ng hi s d eci s i on t o w ai ve fur t her pr ocee di ngs . For p u rposes of thi s pr ocee di ng,32 M r . M i chae l w as al s o appoi nt ed i ndepende nt c o u n se l.
T h rou g h o u t th ese p roc ee d ing s, M r. M i chae l ha s m ai nt ai ned the cons i s t entpos i t i on that he does nots eek f eder al cour ti nt er vent i on w i t h r es pectt o hi s convi ct i on and s entence. H av ing f

o u n d , w ith o u t hes it ati o n , that M r. M i chae l i s co m pet ent , and has m ade a know i ng, r at i onal and vol unt arydeci s i on, t hi s C our t has no choi ce butt o honort hatdeci s i on. A s d id th e d e a th -se n ten c e d in m a te in Co me r[ v . S t e wa r t , 2 3 0 F

. S u p p . 2 d 1 0 1 6 ( D. A r i z. 2002) ] , M r . M i chae l ‘ has m ade a compet ent and fr ee c hoi ce, w hi ch “i s m er el y and exampl e of d o ing w h at y o u w an t t o d o , em b o d ies i n the w o rd lib e rty.” ’ 2 3 0 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 0 7 2 . A lso w o rth rei t er at i ng her e i s t he El eventh C i r cui t’ s admoni t i on i n Sanchez

- V el as co v. Sec’ yof the D e p ’t o f C o rr. , 2 8 7 F

. 3 d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 3 3 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) , af

f irm in g a d istric t co u rt’s f in d in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t co m p e ten tly , k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n tar ily wa i v e d f e d e r a l c o u r tc o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w: [W ] e s houl d notfor gett he val ues that m o ti v ated the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s W hi t mor e [v

. A rka ns a s , 49 5 U. S.33 149, 110 S. C t
. 1717, 109 L

. E d. 2d 1 3 5 (1 9 9 0 )] d e c isio n a n d w h a t is r eal l yats t ake i n thi s ki nd of ca s e. T hes e ca s es ar e about the r i ghtof se lf -d e ter m in a tio n a n d f

re e d o m to m ake fundamen tal choi ces a f f e c tin g o n e ’s life

. . . . [ A ] d e a th r ow i nm at e . . . does not have many choice s l eft

. O ne choi ce the l aw does gi ve hi m i s w hethert o fi ght t he dea t h s ent ence he i s underor acc ede t o i t
. Sanchez

- V el as c o, w ho i s m ent al l ycompet ent t o m ake that choi c e , ha s de c i de d n ott o c on t e st h i s d e a t h s e n t e n c e a n yf u r t h e r . He h a s th e ri g h t to m a k e th a t c h o ic e . .

. . H e has neveras ked [the att or ney s ] t o r epr es enthi m or c o n s e n t e d t o h a v e t h e m d o s o . He has dir ect ed them t o leave his c ase al one, and t he l aw w i l l enfor ce that di r ect i ve. L i kew i s e, t hi s C our thas no choi ce butt o enfor ce M r. M icha e l’s k n o w ing , rati o n al an d v o lun tary di r ect i ve thatl egal chal l enges t o hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence cea s e.34 I d. at*23.
I n cons i der i ng t hi s appea l w e al s o s houl d keep i n m i nd th a t M ich a e l is in a n u n u s u a l p o sitio n w ith re sp e c t to h is a tto rn e yo n th e a p p e a l, Jo se p h M . C o sg ro v e . M ich a e l w a n ts C os gr ove t o r epr es ent hi m , and thus he does notvi ew C os gr ove in th e n e g a tiv e w a yh e v iew s th e C a p ital H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it. Y etas I expl ai ned i n m y di s s entfr om t he or derdeny i ng r ehea r i ng on J ul y7, 2005, “C os gr ove and M i chae l ar e w or ki ng a t cr o ss -p u rp o se s a s it is c lea r th a t C o sg ro v e d o e s n o t w a n t u s to di s m i s s M i chae l ’ s appea l butM i chae l does

. ” M i chae l v. H or n, N o . 0 4 -9 0 0 2 , 2 0 0 5 U .S . A p p . L E X IS 1 3 4 6 3 , a t * 1 5 (3 d C ir. Ju ly 7 , 2 0 0 5 ).
W hyt hen do w e notdi s m i s s t hi s appea l at this ti m e as M i chae l r epea t edl yhas a sk ed u s t o do? A ft eral l , i tm i ghtbe t houghtt hat if he w as compet entt o di s m i s s t he pet i t i on for habea s corpus s ur el y h e m us tbe compet entt o di s m i s s t he appea l

. T he r eas on i s t hatD r. R ober tW et t s t ei n, on w hom t he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed i n fi ndi ng M i chae l compet en t, s i nce ha s ex p resse d so m e w o rds o f c au ti o n reg ard ing M icha el’s compet ency . Fi ve day s befor e w e hea r d a pr el i m i naryor al a r g u me n ti n t h i s c a s e o n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d t h u s b e f o r e we i s s ued our l i m i t ed cert i fi cat e of appe al abi l i t yi n t hi s cas e dea l i ng o n ly w ith the disch arg e of h is att o rne y s in th e dis tr ic t co u rt ’s M ar ch 10, 2004 or der , w e re cei ved a l et t er t hathad bee n s i gned byD r . W et t s t ei n i ndi cat i ng:35 I have .

. . been i nfor m ed thatM r . M i chae l r ep r e s e n t e d t o t h e Cou r to f App e a l s t h a th e no l ongerw i s hes t o be exe cut ed, butw ant s t he l egal i s s ues i n hi s cas e pr es ent ed w i t h t he ass i s t ance of new l egal couns el

. B as ed upon hi s r ece ntchange o f m ind , it is m yp sy ch iat ri c o p inion that M r. M i chae l ’ s m ent al s t at e needs fur t herexpl or at i on. H is re p re se n ta ti o n th a t h e w ish e s to lit ig a te h is cr i m i nal convi ct i on and dea t h s ent ence s houl d be eval uat ed.
L ater D r . W et t s t ei n w r ot e a l ett erdat ed J anuary4, 2006, e x p l ai ning t hat “a further evaluat i on i s w arr anted” becau se M ich ael had “again vacil l at ed” w i t h respectt o co nti nu i ng h is appea l

. A tt hatt i m e D r . W et t s t ei n s ai d t hat he w oul d be w i l l i ng t o m ake the eval uat i on. H e r ei t er at ed thatpos i t i on i n another let ter ab o u t a m o n th later. It ap p ea rs th at h e w rote the se lett ers a s a re s u lt o f

c o n ta c t b e tw e e n h im a n d C o s g ro v e . R e g a r d les s o f

th e e tym o lo g yo f

th e se lette rs, o b v io u sly t hey sh oul d have c aus ed us t o paus e bef or e w e di s m i s s ed the appea l , a n d t h e yd i d h a v e t h a te f f e c t
. Yetwe s h o u l d c o n s i der th e lette rs w ith in th e c o n tex t o f th e a c tu a l h isto ryo f

th is a p p e a l. A s J u d g e A m b ro p o in ts o u t in h is o p in io n , M ich a e l w ro te th is cou r t o n Apr i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 ; Nov e mbe r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 ; Fe b ru a r y 22, 2005; M ar ch 28, 2005; M ay 23, 2005; Sept ember 19, 2005; and F e b ru a ry6 , 2 0 0 6 , ind ica tin g th a t h e d o e s n o t w a n t th e a p p e a l to pr ocee d. T he onl yt i m e he t ook a contr arypos i t i on w as on M ayThe only ways Michael c ould have c hallen ged th e June 2, 2005 14 orde r w a s to pe tition

fo r a rehe aringor

fo r c e rtiorari

. 36 5 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n h e re q u e s te d th a t th e a p p e a l p ro c e e d

. I ti s t rue, as J udge A m br o al s o poi nt s o ut , t hatM i chae l “made n o e f

f o r t t o h a v e o u r J u n e [ 2 , 2 0 0 5 ] o r d e r ( s e n d i n g t he cas e bac k t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ) r econs i der ed orappea l ed, ” but nei t herD r . W et t s t ei n nor a n y o ne el s e ca n dr aw anyi nfer ence f ro m th a t in a c tio n . A f ter a ll, c o u ld a n y o n e r e a ll y e x p e c t a l i t i gant repr es ent ed bycouns el t o fi l e a pr o s e pet i t i on for r ehea r i ng ora pet i t i on for ce rt ior ar i ? M or eover , w hen the 14 resp o n d en ts pe ti ti o n ed fo r reh ea ri n g o f the J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 o rde r, M i chae l di d notoppos e thatpet i t i on and as k us t o adher e t o t he J une 2, 2005 or der

. I f hi s fai l ur e t o s eek a r ever s al of the J une 2, 2005 or der can gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence t hat he di d notobj ect t o the r e mand , t he n h i s fa i l ur e t o o bj e c tt o the r e s po nd e nt s’ pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng or t o our A ugus t 10, 2005 or dergr ant i ng re h e a rin g o f

th e Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r a n d re c a lli n g th e m a n d a te i s s u e d f o l l o wi n g t h e J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 o r d e rwo u l d r e q u i r e t h a twe dr aw t he r ever s e i nfer ence t hathe di d notw antt he mat t er re m a n d e d a s p ro v id e d in th e J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r. It is also e v id e n t th a t th e f a c t th a t h e w a n ts C o sg ro v e to b e h is a tto rn e y d o e s n o t m e a n th a t M ich a e l w a n ts h is a p p e a l to be hear d and cannot i n any w ay s ugges t t hat h e is v aci l l at i ng w i t h r es pectt o t hatques t i on. M i chae l cl ear l yw ant s C os gr ove as hi s at t or ney at th e sam e t i m e thathe w ant s hi s appea l t o beActually my opinion alrea dy

make s i t obvious that Ihave 15 reservations about the remand so my ex p l anation of therea sons for the re servations at this poi nt merely expands on what Ihave said. 37 d ism iss e d , a n d th e re is no re a so n w h yth is re p re se n tatio n sh o u ld n o t b e p e rm itt e d in a sm u c h a s C o sg r o v e h a s a g re e d to b e h is at t or ney . T hough I can unde r s t and w hyi tm i ghts eem surpr i s i ng t hat M i c h a e l s t i l l wan t s Cos g r o v e a s h i s a t t o r n e y i n a s muc h as t heyhav e differ ent at t i tud es abou tw hetherw e shou l d d i sm i ss t he appe al , I al s o u n d erst and w hyhe w oul d w antC os gr ove as hi s at t or neyas t hey fr equent l y have confe r r ed, and C os gr ove has vi s i t ed him q u it e oft en. Pl ai nl yt heyhave ha d a s i gni fi cant r el at i ons hi p. I ndeed, i n a l et t ert o t hi s cour tdat ed J anuary9, 2 0 0 6 , M ic h a e l d e s c ri b e d C o s g ro v e a s h is la w y e r a n d “ f ri e n d .”
N ow t hatI have gi v en the backgr ound of the ca s e as g e r m a n e t o t h e r e m a n d w e a r e o r d e r i n g , I w i l l e x p l a i n w h y I h a v e re se rv a tio n s a b o u t th e re m a n d b u t n e v e rth e les s a g re e to it

. I firstw il l exp lai n w h y I h av e reserv ati o n s fo cu sing o n D r. 15 W et t s t ei n’ s l et t er s and then expl ain m ym or e gene r al rese rva ti o n s reg ard ing a re m an d

. M yfirstp rob lem w ith D r. W et t s t ei n’ s l et t er s i s t hatI r eal l ydo n o t k n o w i f he ha d been gi ven the f

u ll p ict ur e bef

or e he w r ot e them. A ft eral l , as he expl ai ned i n hi s J une 2004 l ett er , he w as bas i ng hi s opi ni on on w h a t h e h a d b e e n “ in f

o rm e d ,” s o th a t in a ss e ss in g h is le tters it w oul d be s i gni fi cant t o know w hat i nfor m at i on he had w hen he w rote the m . In th is r eg ard I w an t t o p o int ou t th at i n D r. W et t s t ei n’ s J anuary4, 2006 l et t erhe s ai d t hata fur t her38 e v a lu a tio n is w a rr a n te d b e c a u s e M ic h a e l h a d “ a g a in v a c illa te d .” Y et t he fa c tua l ba s i s fo rt he s t a t e menti s qu e s t i on a bl e be c ause e v e n i f we t r e a t M i c h a e l ’ s F e b ru a r y 5 , 2 0 0 5 l e t t e ra s k i n g f o rt wo w eeks t o r econs i der hi s deci s i on t o have t hi s appea l di s m i s s ed, t o w hi ch J udge A m br o r efe r s i n hi s opi ni on, as re flec t i ng vaci l l at i on, on M ar ch 28, 2005, he m ade i t cl ear t hat he w ant ed t he app e a l t o b e d i s mi s s e d a n d h e h a s a d h e r e d t o t h a tp o s i t i on evers i nce. T hus , fr om M ar ch 28, 2005, unt i l J anuary4, 2006, M i chel s i m pl yhad notvaci l l at ed.
B utI do notw antt o pr ot r actt h ese pr ocee di ngs any l ongerbys ugges t i ng that w e remand t he ca s e fort he di s t r i ct cour tt o as cert ai n w hat i nfor m at i on D r . W et t s t ei n had w hen he w r ot e hi s l et t er s as a p rel i m i narys t ep bef or e w e det er m i ne w hetherw e s houl d rem and t he ca s e fora furt hereval uat i on of M icha el’s co m p eten cy . I reje c t this i d ea o f a p reli m inary r emand becau se a s tudyof the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e s how s t hat a c tu a l l y Mi c h a e l h a s b e e n q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t i n h i s w i s h t h a t we di s m i s s t hi s appea l

. M or eover , D r . W et t s t ei n has notr epudi at ed t he conc l us i on he s t at ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatM i chae l att hat t i m e w as compet entt o m ake the dec i s i on t o di s m i s s t he habe as corpus pr ocee di ngs . H e has s ugges t ed onl yt hatM i chae l be eval uat ed further. I ts eems c l eart o m e thatM i chae l has been c o n sis ten t b e c a u se M ich a e l’s o n lyre a l in c o n sis ten c yw ith r es pectt o hi s w i s h t o di s m i s s t hi s appea l w as o n M ay5, 2004, w hen he a s ked thatw e hea rt he ca s e. I ti s t rue that , as J udge A m b ro h as e x p lai n ed , an d I a lr ea d y h av e ind icated , o n F eb rua ry 5, 2005, M i chae l as ked fort w o w eeks m or e t o cons i derw hetherSometimes a separate procee ding is re quired for d et erm ination of 16 the sen tenceto b eimp os e d. In f a c t, t hat w a s th esit

uatio n in Michae l’s prosecution. 39 he w ant ed t he appea l di s m i s s ed fol l ow i ng w hi ch on M ar ch 28, 2005, he s ai d he w ant ed i t di s m i s s ed. I t w oul d be a s t r et ch, but I s uppos e thata per s on as ki ng fort i m e t o t hi nk overa dec i s i on coul d be cha r act er i zed a s vaci l l at i ng. I n cons i der i n g whe th erM i chae l ’ s hes i t at i on, w hi ch att he l a t e s te n d e d 1 6 mon t h s a g o , c a n b e r e g a r d e d a s i n d i c a t i n g t hat h e h a s b e e n v a c il la tin g to su c h a d e g re e a s to re f lec t o n h is compet ency , w e s houl d r emembe rwha te v e ryj u d g e and a t t or ney know s , i

. e. , l i t i gat i on w hethercr i m i nal orci v il does notgo forw ar d i n a s t r ai ght li n e, and l i t i gant s w hos e compet ency c a n n o t b e q u e stio n e d a n d , in f a c t, is n o t q u e stio n e d c h a n g e th e ir m i nds r egar di ng cr i t i cal i s s u es d ur i ng t he cour s e of l i t i gat i on. I w ill g iv e tw o e x a m p les k n o w n to e v e ry o n e f a m ili a r w ith j ud i ci al proceed i ng s. Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11(b) s et s for t h a d etail ed list of

req u ir em en ts th at a c o u rtm u st fo ll o w b ef o re acc ept i ng a pl ea o f gui l t y , and s t at e court s have s i m i l ar proced ures. O ne m i gh t supp ose that w hen cou rt s fol l ow t ho se ru l e s , a s t h e y a l m o s t a l w a ys d o , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n tp l e a d s g u i l t y, t hat he qu i t e con cl usi velyhas w ai ved his ri gh tt o a tr i al atl east w i t h r es pect t o w hetherhe i s gui l t yof the off ens e forw hi ch he has been c har ged. Y et t her e i s an ext ens i ve bodyof ca s e l aw 1640 d e a l i n g w i t h m o t i o n s b y d e f e n d a n t s t o w i t h d r a w p l e a s o f g u i l t y. S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 336 F. 3d 245 ( 3d C i r . 200 3 ). O b v io u slya d e f

e n d a n t m a k in g su c h a m o tio n h a s c h a n g e d h is m i nd and ca n be sai d t o have vaci l l at ed but can a ny one bel i eve t hatm er el ybeca us e he doe s s o t hatt he co ur ts houl d or dert hat a c o mp e t e n c ye v a l u a t i o n b e ma d e o f h i m?
It o f ten c o rre c tlyis s a id th a t th e p a rties re so lv e m o st c iv il l i t i gat i on t hr ough s et t l emen t ag ree m ent s . B ut , as j udges and at t or ney s know , a s et t l ement does notal w ay s r es ol ve the cont rover s yathand. T hatci r cumst ance has gi ve r i s e t o m uch lit ig a tio n d e a lin g w it h e n f o rc e m e n t o f

se ttl e m e n ts, f

re q u e n tly b e c a u se p a rties h a v e c h a n g e d th e ir m in d s a n d re jec t se ttl e m e n ts t heyear li er appr oved. See, e. g. , C om m c’ n W or ker s of A m . v. N

. J

. D ep’ tof Per s onnel , 41 Fed. A ppx. 554 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( per cur i am) ( “The N at i onal

. . . not i fi ed the di s t r i ctcour tt hat t he N ati o n al no lon g er c o n sen ted to th e p rop o sed sett lem en t. ”). S h o u ld w e c o n d u c t co m p e ten c ye v a lu a tio n s o f c iv il l iti g a n ts w ho r ej ects et t l ement s t o w hi ch theyhave a gr eed? In th e c o n tex t o f w h at i s inv o lved in this ca se, I r eg ard M i chae l ’ s hes i t at i on about t hi s appea l goi ng forw ar d as not r efl ect i ng on hi s compet encyatal l

. For hi m t hi s ca se has not i nvol ved m oney oreven l i ber t y . R ather , t hi s l i t i gat i on i nvol ves t he ul t i m at e ques t i on of l i fe ordeath. I f faced w i t h hi s choi ce, th e m o st c o m p e ten t a n d sta b le p e rso n m ig h t h e sita te o r v a c ill a te befor e di s m i s s i ng an appe al i n an act ion t hat , i f cont i nued, su re lyw o u ld d e lay th e e x e c u tio n o f a d e a th s e n ten c e , as itM i ch ael wa s awa re of simil ar possibilities if he kept the district 17 co urtproce eding s g oing, but heelec ted not to do so. Michael v. Horn, 2004 WL438678, at *11. 41 al r eadyhas w i t h r es pect to M i chae l , or , even i f the cha nce of s ucce s s m ays eem r emot e, actual l ypr ecl ude i t
. M or eover , as 17 I h a v e e x p lain e d , h is a c tu a l d e g re e o f v a c ill a tio n h a s b e e n q u ite m in im a l. T h u s, in a sm u c h a s D r. W e ttstein h a s p r e d ica ted h is cal l forM i chae l ’ s fur t hereval uat i on on M i chae l ’ s vaci l l at i on I h av e se ri o u s q u esti o n s ab o u t the ef fica cyo f D r. W ett stei n ’s su g g est i on. A ccor di ngl y , I have tw o pr obl ems w i t h D r. W et t s t ei n’ s l et t er s . Fi r s t , I do notkno w that the yr efl ectw hat actual l yhappene d w i t h r es pectt o M i chae l ’ s vaci l l at i on. S econ d, I doub tt hat M i chael’ s vaci l l at i on can be r egarded as so s i gni fi cantw i t h r es pectt o hi s compet encyt hat i tcas t s doubton t he pri or unas s ai l abl e det er m i nat i on of t he di s t r i ctcour tt hathe w as compet entt o deci de w het h er thi s l i t i gat i on s houl d go f o rw a rd

. As I s a i d e a r l i e r , i n a d d i t i o n t o q u e s t i o n i n g whe t h er M i chae l ’ s m i ni m al vaci l l at i on cal l s forhi s fur t hereval uat i on, th e re a re tw o m o re g e n e ra l re a so n s n o t sp e c if ica llyd e a lin g w ith M i chae l ’ s compet en cy w h y I am agr eei ng w i t h r el uct ance t o a r emand fora furt hereval uat i on. T o s t ar tw i t h t her e i s no doubt aboutM i chae l ’ s gui l t
. H e di d, aft eral l , pl ead g u il ty
. W hi l e I am aw ar e thata def

endants om et i m es w i l l pl ead gui l t yt o a cr i m e he ha s n o t co m m i t t ed, t hatdi d nothappen he r e. A ft er M i chae l m ur dered T r i s t a Eng, he conc eal ed herbodyi n a42 w o o d e d a re a . T h e b o d yw a s n o t f o u n d u n til h e c o n f

e ss e d to h is b ro th e r m o re th a n a m o n th la ter th a t h e m u rd e re d h e r a n d to ld hi m w her e he h ad conc eal ed the body

. H i s br ot herand other fami l ym ember s s ear ched f or and found t he bodyand onl yt hen not i f i e d t h e Pe n n s y l v a n i a s t a t e p o l i c e a b o u tt h e s i tu a t i on. C l ear l y , onl ythe m u rder ercoul d have know n w her e the body coul d be found. T h u s , t hi s i s nota ca s e i n w hi ch ther e i s even a r emot e pos s ibil it y t hatan i nnocentdefe ndanthas been convi ct ed.
T h e se c o n d g e n e ra l re a so n n o t sp e c if ica ll y re late d to M i chae l ’ s compet encyw hyI have r es er vat i ons r egar di ng t he re m a n d c o n c e rn s T ri s ta E n g h e rs e lf a s w e ll a s h e r f

a m i l y. I rea l i ze thati ts om et i m es s eems thatt he cr i m i nal l aw i s m o re conce r ned w i t h defe ndant s t han vi ct i m s . I r egr ett hi s fact , but i ti s i nevi t abl e as a pr os ecut i on and t r i al focus on w hatt he d e f e n d a n t d id a n d th e p ro c e d u re s th a t m u st b e f o llo w e d w ith r es pectt o hi s pl ea a nd, dependi ng on hi s pl ea, t o hi s t r i al

. Y et t hi s i m bal ance has caus ed conc ern among l egi s l at i ve bodi es and i t i s g oo d t o be able t o n ote that theyhav e t aken st eps t o redress t he im balance such a s bypassi ng vict i m s’ ri gh t s st atutes
. M or e than 13 y ear s have pa s s ed s i nce M i chae l m ur der ed 1 6

- y e a ro l d Tr i s t a E n g wh o wa s a t o t a l s t r a n g e rt o h i m. He encount er ed herw hen s he w as on herw ayt o w or k ata H ar dees r es t aur antw her e s he had a s um m erj ob. I n a w ant on and s ens el es s act , he murde r ed herbeca u se h e face d r ape c har ges i n v o l v i n g a n o t h e rwo ma n t h a th e f e l twe r e n o tj u s t i f

i e d

. He43 p lea d e d g u iltyto m u rd e rin g T rista E n g , an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt u p h e ld h is c o n v ictio n o n a m a n d a to rya p p e a l, C om m onw eal t h v. M i chae l , 674 A

. 2d 1044 ( Pa. 1996) , and l at er aff i r m ed the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of pos t
- con v ic t i on r el i ef. C om m onw eal t h v. M i chae l , 755 A

. 2d 1274 ( Pa. 2000)

. T hen, atM i chae l ’ s ow n req ues tata t i m e thathe undoubt edl yw as compet ent , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the habea s corpus pr oceedin gs s t ar t ed i n hi s name. T her e ca n be no doubtt hat M ich a e l w a s c o m p e ten t w h e n h e a sk e d th e d istric t co u rt to di s m i s s t he habe as corpus pr ocee di ngs . I ndeed, w hen w e i s s ued t he c erti fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yi n t hi s cas e w e di d noteven m ent i on a compet encyques t i on, and thus even i f w e d id not d ism iss th e a p p ea l w e c o u ld n o t r ev iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s det er m i nat i on t hat M i chae l w as compet entt o caus e the habe as corpus pr ocee di ngs t o be di s m i s s ed.
I canno thelp but th in k th a tt he p roceedings i n thi s case mu s tb e t o r t u r i n g t h e f

a mi l yo f T r i s t a E n g . He rf

a mi l yk n o ws w h a t e v e ryo n e w h o is f a m ilia r w ith th is c a s e k n o w s , i.e ., M ich a e l m u rd e re d h e r, an d th o u g h h e h a s b e e n se n ten c e d to d ie and the Penns y l vani a court s have uph el d hi s convi ct i on and s e n t e n c e b o t h o n d i r e c t a p p e a l a n d o n a c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w, t he s ent ence has notbeen c arr i ed out

. T hough n o o n e ca n s ayfor s ur e how T r i s t a Eng’s l i fe w ou ld ha ve unfol ded, I can s ayt hat if M ich a e l h a d n o t m u rd e re d h e r sh e w o u ld n o w b e a 2 9 -y e a r o ld w om an and w oul d have ha d an oppor tuni t yt o l i ve herl i fe a nd t o m arr yand have her ow n fami l y . M i chae l depr i ved her of that o p p o rt u n ity.44 I ndeed, I c annothel p butw onderw hetherM i chae l has s oughtt o t er m i nat e t hes e pr ocee di ngs beca us e he r ecogni zes t he har m t hathe has done t o T r i s t a Eng and herfami l yand has been t r y i ng t o t er m i nat e the j u d ici al pr ocee di ngs know i ng t hati f he d o e s s o h e w ill m a k e a m e n d s s o f a r a s h e n o w c a n d o . I sa yth is beca us e s ur el y h e m u sthave f el tr emors e af

t erhe murde r ed T rista E n g f

o r I c a n d isc e rn n o o th e r re a so n w h yh e c o n f e ss e d to h is b r o th e r th a t h e h a d m u rd e re d h e r. T h u s, it se e m s th a t, n o tw ith sta n d in g th e c rim e th a t M ich a e l co m m itt e d , h e p lain ly di ffe r s fr om t he r emors el es s defe ndant s t hatcour t s s om et i m es s e e w h o e x a lt in w h a t th e yh a v e d o n e . I a s k t h i s q u e s t i o n : Do e s n o tt h e c o u r ts y s t e m o we anyt hi ng t o T r i s t a E ng and her fami l y and, s o far as i t can do s o, w h i l e a c t i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y wi t h t h e l a w, s h o u l d i t n o t b r i n g her fami l y ’ s t or tur e t o an end, par t i cul ar l yw hen the per s on re sp o n sib le f

o r h e r m u rd e r w a n ts it en d e d ? I k n o w th a t w ith r es pectt o cr i m i nal puni s hm ent s death i s di ffe r ent
. See Fur m an v. G eor gi a, 408 U

. S. 238, 306- 07, 92 S. C t
. 2726, 276 0 (19 7 2) (S tew a rt, J., c o n c u rrin g ). B u t c a n n o t th e sa m e th in g b e sa id w ith r es pectt o t he ef

fec tof t he cr i m e of m ur deron t he vi ct i m and her fami l yas compar ed t o al l ot her cr i m es ? Is ourl aw s o one s i ded t hat at a t r i al and on appea l s onl y t he defe ndant i s o f a ny i m por t ance ?
A n yo n e w h o r e a d s m y o p i n i o n m i g h t w o n d e rw h y, i ns t ead of

j oi ni ng i n J udge A m br o’ s opi ni on, I am not di s s ent i ng and vot i ng t o di s m i s s t hi s appea l

. M o r eover , i n t hi s r egar d aI f I had written the majority opinion, in some re spects it would have 18 differed from wh at J u d ge Ambro wrote. B ut it is always true that even though judge s agree on the appropriate outcome of a case , they wo uld no t wri teidenti c a l op ini on s. 45 r eade rcoul d poi ntt o m ydi s s entfr om t he J une 2, 2005 or der r emandi ng t he ca s e i n w hi ch I s ai d t hatI w oul d di s m i s s t he appea l and mydi s s entfr om t he or derdeny i ng t he pet i t i on s eeki ng a r ehea r i ng of the J une 2, 2 0 0 5 o r deri n M i chae l v. H or n , 2 0 0 5 U. S. App

. LEXI S 1 3 4 6 3 , a t * 2 6 , i n whi ch I i ndi cat ed t hat I bel i eved t hat “the panel s houl d gr antr ehea r i ng, vaca t e the J une 2, 2005 or der , and di s m i s s t he appe al

. ” I ndeed, a r eade rr eas onabl ycoul d as s er tt hatbyj oi ni ng i n J udge A m b ro ’s o p in io n I a m v a c illa tin g . B uti n t he end ther e ar e thr ee r eas ons w hyI am not di s s ent i ng and i ns t ead a m j oi ni ng i n Ju d g e A m br o’ s opi ni on. F i rs t , of co urse, I bel i eve t hat regardl ess of t he co nsi derat i on s I have s etfor t h, J udge A m br o’ s opi ni on i s corr ectand I cannot a llo w m y p e r s o n a l v iew o f a c a se to tru m p m yo b lig a tio n to fol l ow t he l aw . Second, at t he t i m e of the J une 2, 2005 or der 18 r emandi ng t he ca s e and a tt he t i m e of the deni al of the pet i t i on s eeki ng r ehea r i ng of t hator dert he s i tuat i on w as di ffe r entt han i ti s now beca us e the pane l w as r emandi ng t he mat t ert o t he di s t r i ctcourt“forfur t herpr ocee di ngs t o det er m i ne w hether h ab ea s co rpu s reli ef

is w arran ted,” thu s o p e n in g u p the e n ti re cas e i n t he di s t r i ctcour ti n compl et e di s r egar d of the l i m i t at i ons in o u r c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty , a n d th e p a n e l w a s ad h e rin g to46 t hat posi t i on w hen den y i n g reheari ng . I tho ug ht that these o r d e r s we r e n o tj u s t i f

i e d

. No w t h e p a ne l i s t a k i n g wh a ts e e ms t o m e t o be t he m or e r eas onabl e and nuance d pos it ion that M i chae l be r eeva l uat ed. T hus , t he choi ce I fac e now i s di ffe r ent f ro m th a t w h ic h I f

a c e d a y e a r a g o . T h ird , I h a v e re c o n sid e re d th e d istric t c o u rt’s o p in io n in t hi s m at t eri n t he l i ght of Judge A m br o’ s opi ni on and have t aken par t i cul arnot e thatt he di s t r i ctcour ti n d i c at ed thati n cons i der i ng M i chae l ’ s compet encyi t s “pr oces s i ncl uded .

. . a current exa m inati on bya hi ghl yqual i fi ed expe r t , ” i

. e. , D r . W et t s t ei n. I ndeed, t he di s tr ictcour tl i s t ed D r . W et t s t ei n’ s exami nat i on as t he fi r s ts t ep i n i t s t hr ee- s t ep compet encyi nqui r y . N ow t hatt hat hi ghl yqual i fi ed expe r tbel i eves t here sh oul d be a f ur t her e v a lu a tio n , w h a tev e r m yre se rv a tio n s, I th in k th a t itis a p p ro p ri a te to a c c e d e to h is s u g g e s tio n . I n cl os i ng I w antt o comm enton t he l i m i t ed s cope of our re m a n d

. W e a re re m a n d in g th e c a se f o r th e d istric t c o u r t to det er m i ne i f M i chae l i s compet ent t o di s m i s s t hi s appea l

. I f he is an d h e a d h e re s to h is de c isio n to d ism iss th e a p p e a l, w e w ill do s o and the appe al w i l l be over

. I n t hat event i tw i l l notm at t er w hethert he det er m i nat i ons t hat t he di s t r i ctcour tm ade l eadi ng t o i t s or derof M ar ch 10, 2004, dism issi ng hi s habea s corpus p e titio n w e re c o rr e c t o r i n c o rr e c t a s w e c a n n o t r e v ie w th e m . O n the ot her han d, i f M i chael i s not com petentt o d i sm i ss th e a p p e a l o r if

h e is c o m p e te n t to d o so b u t as k s u s to47 a d ju d ica te it o n th e m e ri ts w e w ill n o t d ism iss th e a p p e a l. R ather , w e w i l l deci de the appe al

. I n t hateventw e w i l l have j ur i s di ct i o n to answ eronl yt he s i ngl e tw o- par tques t i on on w hi ch w e gr ant ed a cert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y on J une 30, 2004, “w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rtv iolated 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 8 (q)(4) ( B ) by d ism issi n g co u n sel fo r H u b ert M icha el an d , if t h e D istri ct C o u rt s o err ed, w hethert he err orw as har m l es s. ” See M i l l erv. D rag o v ich, 31 1 F

. 3 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).
I m ake the for egoi ng poi nts o t hati ts houl d be cl eart hat t he pr ocee di ngs on t he rem and need notbe pr ot r act ed. T he d istric t co u rt o n th e re m a n d w ill n o t b e d e a lin g w ith a q u a sim ot i on forr econs i der at i on of i t s M ar ch 10 , 2 0 0 4 deci s i on and o r d e ra n d wi l l n o tb e r e e x a mi n i n g i t s o r i g i n a l d e t e r mi n a t i ons i ncl udi ng, i n par t i cul ar , i t s d eter m i nat i on t hatM i chae l w as comp e t e n tt o c a u s e t h e h a b e a s c o rp u s p r o c e e d i n g t o be di s m i s s ed and thathe had made “a know i ng, r at i onal and v o lun tary d ec isi o n ” t o ca u se itto b e d ism issed w h ich th e c o u rt w as obl i ged t o honor

. I tw i l l b e dea l i ng w i t h hi s compet ency n o w to d ism iss th is ap p ea l. T h u s, an yref ere n ce to M icha el’s compet encyd u ri ng t he per i od t hi s cas e w as pendi ng i n t he di s t r i ctcour tort o t he evi dence on t hat i s s ue can be ger m ane on th e re m a n d o n lyin so f a r a s it m a yh a v e b e a rin g o n h is c o mp e t e n c yn o w. For al l t he r eas ons t hatI have s t at ed and notw i t hs t andi ng m yr es er vat i ons , I join in J udge A m br o’ s opi ni on or der i ng a r emand i n t hi s cas e fort he l i m i t ed p u rpo ses t hatt he di s t r i ct48 cour tdet er m i ne M i chae l ’ s c o mpe t encyt o di s m i s s t he appe al and f o r th e d istric t c o u rt to a sk M ich a e l w h e th e r he still w a n ts u s to d ism iss th e a p p e a l.