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 3-2-2006 

# U SA v . M orin P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4234

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 nova . 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M or in" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1486. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1486R E SU B M I T T E D B P S- 40 NOT P 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 N O . 05- 4234

___________ 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. SH AW N E . MO RIN, Appe l l ant

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 03- cr - 00279) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e W i l l i am L . S t and i sh

_________________ S u b m itt e d F o r D e ter m in a tio n o f W h e th e r a C e rtific a te o f A p p e a lab ili ty Shoul d I s s ue and Pos s i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J anuary6, 2006 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed M ar ch 2, 2006)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ P E R C UR I AM O n A pr i l 14, 2004, Shaw n M or i n pl ed gui l t yt o bank r obbery . H e w as s ubs equent l ys ent ence d t o fi fty - s even mont hs i n pr i s on. M or i n di d notfi l e a di r ect2

appea l . I n J une 2005, he fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. M or i n al l eged that h is c o u n s e l to ld h im th a t h e w a s f a c in g a s e n te n c e o f

o n ly tw e n ty-f

o u r t o th ir ty m o n th s . H e a lso c laim e d th a t h is c o u n se l f a iled to f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l af

ter h e re q u e ste d h im to do s o. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the § 2255 mot i on. I tdet erm i ned thatM or i n w as not pr ej udi ced byanyfai l ur e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l beca us e hi s ot hercl ai m of i neff ect i ve a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l wa s wi t h o u tme r i t . M o r i n f i l e d a t i me l yn o t i c e o f

a p p e a l wh i c h we ha ve c on s t rue d a s a r e qu e s tfo ra c e r t i fi c a t e of a pp e a l a bi l i t y . Se e Fe d. R. A pp . P. 22( b) ( 2) . O n D ece m ber8t h, pur s uantt o t hi s C our t ’ s N ovember30t h or der , t he g o v e rn m e n t f

ile d a re s p o n s e . I n Sol i s v. U ni t ed St at es , 252 F. 3d 289 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e r emanded an appe al w i t h an i dent i cal cl ai m foran evi dent i aryhear i ng. “I n t hi s cas e, Sol i s cl ai m s t hathe di r ect ed hi s at t or neyt o fi l e an a ppeal , butt hathi s at t or neyfai l ed t o compl y . O n i t s fac e, t hi s cr eat es a ques t i on of fa ctw hetherSol i s di r ect ed hi s att or neyt o fi l e an a ppeal . I f he d id, th en S o li s’s S ixth A m en d m en t r igh t t o co u n sel w as v iolated b yh is co u n sel’s fa il u re t o act . ” I d. at294. T he Supr eme C our thas not ed that“[w ] e have l ong hel d t hata l aw y er w ho di s r egar ds s peci fi c i ns t ruct i ons fr om t he def endantt o fi l e a not i ce of appea l act s i n a m annert hati s pr ofes s i onal l yunr eas onabl e. ” R oe v. Fl or es - O r t ega, 528 U . S. 470, 477 ( 2000) ci t i ng R odr i guez v. U ni t ed St at es , 395 U . S. 327 ( 1969) . T he C our tl at erexpl ai ned t hati f s uch al l egat i ons w er e true, t her e w as a pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce be caus e the peti t i on er w as depri ved of an app el l at e proceed i ng al t og et her. Id. at48 3. T he C ou rtal so3

not ed thati ti s unfai rt o expec ta pr o s e l i t i gantt o demonst r at e thathi s appea l w oul d have had mer i t . I d. at486. B eca us e M or i n’ s al l egat i ons pr es entt he fa ctual ques t i on of w hetherhe r eques t ed hi s at t or neyt o fi l e a not i ce of appea l and pr ej udi ce i s pr es um ed i f the al l egat i ons ar e true, the D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing the § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n w ith o u t ho lding an ev iden ti ary hear i ng. I n i t s r es pons e, t he governm ents t at ed thati tdoes notoppos e a l i m i t ed r emand forr econs i der at i on of the s ol e cl ai m t hatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l . H ow ever , gi ven ourdi s pos i t i on of thatcl ai m , i ti s notnece s s aryforus t o addr es s M or i n’ s ot hercl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w i t h r es pectt o t he p o ssible se n tenc e M o ri n w as f ac ing . S o li s v . U n it ed S tat es, 25 2 F . 3 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 5 (3d C ir . 2001) ( “N orm us tw e det erm i ne w hetherSol i s ’ s couns el w as i neff ect i ve foranyot her r eas on. O urhol di ng i s l i m i t ed t o t he i s s ue of Sol i s ’ s ent i t l ementt o a di r ectappea l . T he ot heri neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s , i f s t i l l vi abl e, m aybe r ai s ed i n a futur e § 2255 p eti ti o n . ”). Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he appea l . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4. Fort he above r eas ons , w e w i l l gr anta ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y , s um m ar i l yvaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A ugus t3, 2005, or der , and r emand t he mat t erforfur t herpr ocee di ngs . See Thi r d C i r cui tI . O . P. 10. 6. M or i n has fi l ed a mo t i o n f o ra n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me t o f i l e a r e p l yt o t h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s r e s p o n s e . Be c a u s e we a re re m a n d in g th e m a tter o n b o th c laim s, w e w ill d e n yh is m o tio n a s m o o t.