F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R OB E R T MC GO WAN, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50284 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 00 11 3-O D W -1 OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O t i s D . W r i ght , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 10, 2012

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia

B e f o r e : K O Z I N S K I , C h ie f

J u d g e , R E I N H A R D T a n d W . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g es. O pi ni on by R E IN H A R D T , C i rc ui tJudg e: R o b e r t M c G o w a n ( “M c G o w a n ” ) , af o rm e rs ta te p r is o n g u a r d , ap p e a ls h is conv i ct i on and sent ence st em m i ng fr om hi s a ss aul ton tw o i nm at es . H i s c as e has been before us once bef ore: w e pre vi ou sl y r ever se d the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof a 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l f

ol l ow i ng the j ury ’ s gui l ty ve r di c t . M c G ow a n now c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o c ondi t i ona l l y rul e tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o a new tri al i f the j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al w er e t o b e r ever se d, and thathe w as depri ved of the ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l w hen h i s tri al coun se l fa i l ed t o m ake anew tr i a l m ot i on. W e hol d tha tadi s tr i c tc our ti s notr e qui r e d t o m a ke , i nde e d ha s no a uthor i ty t o m a ke , a ny rul i ng a s t o the gr a ntof ane w tr i a l unl e s s the de f e nda nt m a ke s am ot i on r e que s t i ng s uc h arul i ng. W e a l s o di s m i s s M c G ow a n’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m w i thoutpr e j udi c e t o i t s be i ng r a i s e d i n apr oc e e di ng unde r28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . M cG o w an fu rth er co n t en d s th ath e w as d ep ri v ed o f d u e p ro cess w hen the di stri ctj ud ge re l i ed on a pri son i nm at e’ s unrel i abl e a l l egat i on s a t s e n te n c in g . B e c a u s e th e a lle g a tio n s in q u e s tio n w e r e in s u f f ic ie n tly r e liab le to se rv e a s a b as is fo r th e 5 1 -m o n th se n ten ce im p o se d , w e v ac ate M cG o w an ’s se nt ence and rem and for re- se nt enci ng . T hatproceedi ng , as w el l as any c ol l at er al proceedi ng s, shal l be hel d b ef ore anew di stri ctj ud ge.

I . M c G ow a n w a s i ndi c t e d on tw o c ount s of vi ol a t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 242 by depri vi ng i nm at es of thei r c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o b e f re e of c ruel and u nu sual p u n is h m e n t. H e w a s a ls o c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir in g to o b s tru c t ju s tic e f o rh is p a r tic ip a tio n in as c h e m e to im p e d e th e g r a n d ju ry in v e s tig a tio n o f th e a s s a u lts in3

w hi c h he w a s i nvol ve d. A f t e raj ury f

ound hi m gui l ty on a l l c ount s , he m ove d f or aj u d g m e n to f

a c q u i tt a l p u r s u a n tt o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 2 9 ( c ) . He di d n ot , ho w ever , m ov e f or a new tri al pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 3 3 . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e g r a n te d M c G o w a n ’s m o tio n f o ra c q u itta l, b u t d id no ti nd i ca t e how he w ou l d h ave rul ed on a m ot i on for anew tri al had o ne been m ade. T he go vernm entappeal ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof a j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al o n th e § 2 4 2 c o u n ts . W e r e v e r s e d , h o ld in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to a l l ow aj ury t o c onc l ude tha tM c G ow a n ha d “ us e d f or c e a ga i ns ttw o i nm a t e s f or the sol e purpo se of causi ng them harm , ” a nd re m anded for ass i gn m entt o ano ther d is tr ic t ju d g e . U

ni te d State s v . Mc G ow an , 3 3 8 F e d . A p p x . 6 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . F ol l ow i ng the re m and, M cG ow an fi l ed a m ot i on for anew tri al , w hi ch the new d i stri ctj u d g e d en i ed as u n t i m el y. U po n the re i nst at em entof M cG ow an’ s c on vi ct i on , the prob at i on offi ce s ubm i tt e d ar e por ttha tc a l c ul a t e d M c G ow a n’ s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge a s 41 t o 5 1 m on ths of i ncar ce ra t i on . Itl at ersubm i tt ed a l ett erre com m endi ng that M c G o w a n n e v e r th e le s s b e s e n te n c e d to ate rm o f p r o b a tio n a n d h o m e d e te n tio n . T he gove rnm e ntobj e c t e d t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on, di s put i ng, am on g o ther thi ng s, the chara ct er i za t i on of M cG ow an as a “ prod uct i ve and l awIn contra stt o the prob at i on offi ce , the di stri ctj ud ge det erm i ned that 1 M cG ow an had com m i tt ed perj ury a ttri al and thata tw o-l evel ob struct i on of j ust i ce e nha nc e m e nts houl d be appl i e d. 4 abi di ng m em ber of hi s c om m un i ty. ” T he go vernm entem ph as i ze d thatM cG ow an h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f

u s in g m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d s m u g g lin g d ru g s to in m a te s in pr i s on, a l l e ga t i ons tha ti ta r gue d w e r e “ s uf f i c i e nt l y c r e di bl e tha the s houl d not recei v e a b el o w g u i d el i n es sen t en ce b ased o n p rev i o u s g o o d co n d u ct . ” T h ese al l egat i on s w er e bas ed ent i re l y on the cl ai m s of R i cky S ee vers (“ S ee vers ”) , an i nm a t e w ho s e rve d t i m e a tthe C hi no s t a t e pr i s on a tw hi c h M c G ow a n w orke d. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the new di stri ctj ud ge ca l cul at ed the G ui del i nes r a nge t o be 51 t o 63 m onths . A f t e rhe a r i ng a r gum e nt s f

r om both pa r t i e s , he 1 a nnounc e d tha the w a s i m pos i ng as e nt e nc e of 51 m onths . I n the c our s e of e xpl a i ni ng how he ha d a rr i ve d a tthi s de c i s i on, he r e c ount e d S e e ve r s ’ a l l e ga t i ons re gardi ng M cG ow an’ s drug act i vi t i es , concl ud i ng thatthi s “ i nform at i on w as gi ven un der c i rc um st ance s w hi ch gi ves the C ou rtconfi dence of i t s r el i abi l i ty. ” M cG o w an n o w ap p eal s. II. M c G ow a n c ont e nds tha tthe f i r s tdi s tr i c tj udge f

a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th the di ct at es of F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 29 (d) by gra nt i ng hi s m ot i on for a j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l w i thoutm a ki ng ac ondi t i ona l de t e rm i na t i on a s t o w he the rhe5

w oul d a l s o gr a nthi m ane w tr i a l unde rR ul e 33 s houl d the j udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l be r e v e r s e d ( a s it u ltim a te ly w a s ) . R u le 2 9 ( d ) p r o v id e s : I f the c our te nt e r s aj udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l a f

t e ragui l ty ve r di c t , the courtm ustal so cond i t i on al l y det erm i ne w hether a ny m ot i on for anew tr i a l s houl d be gr a nt e d i f the j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l i s l a t e rva c a t e d or r e ve r s e d. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 29 (d)( 1). B ec ause thi s c l ai m w as no tra i se d b ef ore the di stri ct c o u r t, w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o r . See U

n ite d S ta te s v . T

r e a dw e ll , 593 F . 3d 990, 996 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . I n r e f e rr in g to “a n y m o tio n f

o ran e w tr ia l,” R u le 2 9 ( d ) r e f e r s o n ly to pe ndi ng ne w tr i a l m ot i ons m a de by the de f e nda nt . M c G ow a n’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of R ul e 29(d) – thata c on di t i on al new tri al rul i ng m ustbe m ade w henever the di stri ct courtgrant s am ot i on for a cqui tt al , re gardl es s of w hether am ot i on for anew tri al ha s be e n m a de – i s c ontr a ry t o pr i ori nt e rpr e t a t i ons of the R ul e a s w e l l a s t o the c ons truc t i on of

the A dvi s ory C om m i tt e e on the F e de r a l R ul e s . T ha tthe m ot i on m us tbe pe ndi ng a nd a c tua l , a nd nothy pothe t i c a l orpot e nt i a l , f ol l ow s f r om the s tr ic t tim e lim its th a t R u le 3 3 p la c e s o n th e f ilin g o f m o tio n s f

o ran e w tr ia l: a ll s uc h m ot i ons notba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e m us tbe m a de w i thi n 14 d ays fo l l o w i n g th e j u ry’ s v erd i ct . F ed . R . C ri m . P . 3 3 (b )(2 ). T h atth e m o t i o n m u st be m a de by the de f

e nda nt , a nd notby the c our t , f ol l ow s f r om the pr i nc i pl e tha tthe6

defe nd anti s e nt i t l ed t o p ursue hi s def ense i n the m anner of hi s c ho osi ng . T here m a y w e ll b e r e a s o n s f

o rad e f e n d a n t to m o v e f

o ra c q u itta l b u t n o t f

o ran e w tr ia l. I n T heus v. U

ni ted Stat es , f

ore xa m pl e , de f

e ns e c ouns e l m ove d f

ora c qui tt a l butnot f orane w tr i a l be c a us e agr a ntof ane w tr i a l w oul d ha ve e xpos e d hi s c l i e ntt o a hars her s ent ence . 61 1 F . 3d 44 1, 44 7 (8th C i r. 20 10 ). R equi ri ng thata di stri ctcourt a lw a ys m a k e ac o n d itio n a l ru lin g w o u ld d e p r iv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f th e o p p o r tu n ity t o m ak e a d eci si o n as t o w h eth er h e w an t ed t o m ak e su ch a m o t i o n . A s th e F i rst C ir c u it o b s e rv e d in r e a c h in g th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n th a t w e d o h e r e , th e c h o ic e to m ov e f or a new tri al “ i s the defendant ’ s – and the defendant ’ s a l on e. ” U ni ted State s v . Mor an , 39 3 F . 3d 1, 9 (1stC i r. 20 04 ). W e c onf r ont e d as i m i l a rc i r c um s t a nc e i n U n i ted S ta tes v. N

a va rro V i a yra , 36 5 F . 3d 79 0 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). In thatca se , the defense had, af t erthe j ury r eturned ag u ilty v e r d ic t, m o v e d f o raju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l b u t n o t f

o ran e w tr ia l. I

d. at 791. T he di s tr i c tc our tf i r s tde ni e d the m ot i on f

ora c qui tt a l , the n c onve r t e d i ti nt o a m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l, w h ic h it g r a n te d . I d. W e r e v e r s e d , h o ld in g : R ul e 29 pr ohi bi t s s uas pont e c onve r s i on of am ot i on t o a c qui ti nt o a m ot i on f orane w tr i a l . R ul e 33 pr e c l ude s adi s tr i c tc our tf r om grant i ng a new tri al on i t s ow n m ot i on . T aken t og ether, the rul es p er m ita ju d g e to o rd era n ew trial o n ly in re sp o n se to a d ef en d an t’ s m o t i o n . I d. a t 7 9 5 .I nde e d, the F i r s tC i r c ui tr e l i e d on ourde c i s i on i n N av ar r o V i ay r a in 2 ho l di ng thata di stri ctj ud ge di d n oterr w hen, havi ng grant ed a m ot i on for a cqui tt al (thatw as l at erre vers ed), he di d n otm ake acond i t i on al rul i ng as t o a new tri al w h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t h a d n o t m o v e d f o ro n e . Se e Mor an , 3 9 3 F .3 d a t 9 . 7 M c G ow a n c ont e nds tha thi s c a s e i s di s t i ngui s habl e be c a us e i n N a va rro V i a yra the di s tr i c tc our tha d de ni e d th e m o tio n f o ra c q u itta l a n d th e r e f

o r e f a ile d to tr i gge rthe r e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 29( d) . T he s a m e f a c t or s tha ts uppor t e d our c onc l us i on i n N

a va rro V i a yra , ho w ever , supp ortthe appl i ca t i on of thatrul e her e. 2 A s w e e m pha s i z e d i n N a va rro V i a yra , the A dvi s ory C om m i tt e e N ot e s t o R ul e 29 e xpl a i n tha tthe rul e w a s c ha nge d t o e l i m i na t e l a ngua ge r e f e rr i ng t o the pow e rof th e c o u r t to o r d e ran e w tr ia l b e c a u s e “[ m ]o tio n s f o rn e w tr ia l a r e a d e q u a te ly c o v e r e d in R u le 3 3 ,” a n d “th e o r ig in a l w o r d in g is s u b je c t to th e in te rp r e ta tio n th a t a m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al gi ves the courtpo w ert o o rdera new tri al even th o u g h th e d e f

e n d a n td o e s n o tw i s h an e w tr i a l a n d h a s n o ta s k e d f o ro n e . ” Fe d . R. C r i m . P . 29, A dvi s ory C om m i tt e e N ot e s , 1966 A m e ndm e nt s . L i ke w i s e , the C o m m itte e N o te s to R u le 3 3 s ta te th a t th e ru le ’s la n g u a g e w a s in te n d e d to “m a k e it cl ea r thata j ud ge has no p ow ert o o rdera new tri al on hi s ow n m ot i on , thathe ca n a c t o n ly in r e s p o n s e to am o tio n tim e ly m a d e b y ad e f e n d a n t. P r o b le m s o f

d o u b le j e opa r dy a r i s e w he n the c our ta c t s on i t s ow n m ot i on. ” F e d. R . C r i m . P . 33, A d v is o ry C o m m itte e N o te s , 1 9 6 6 A m e n d m e n ts . T h e ru le u n d e r ly in g th is8

c o m m e n ta ry is c le a r : th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y n o t s u as p o n te g r a n t an e w tr ia l. See N a va rro V i a yra , 365 F . 3d a t795. W e h o ld th a t aju d g e g r a n tin g am o tio n f o ra c q u itta l m a y c o n d itio n a lly ru le on am ot i on f

orane w tr i a l onl y i f

the de f e nda ntha s m a de s uc h am ot i on. T he di stri ctj ud ge thu s di d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o con di t i on al l y gra ntM cG ow an a new tr ia l, a s M c G o w a n d id n o t m a k e am o tio n r e q u e s tin g o n e . I I I . M c G o w a n c la im s , n e x t, th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d c o n s titu tio n a lly i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e i n f

a i l i n g t o f

i l e an e w tr i a l m o t i o n . As a“ g e n e r a l ru l e , ” we

“ do no tre vi ew chal l enges t o the ef fe ct i veness of defe nse c ou nsel on di re ctappeal . ” U ni te d State s v . Mor e land , 622 F . 3d 1147, 1157 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng U ni ted S ta te s v . J

e r o n i mo , 39 8 F . 3d 11 49 , 11 55 (9th C i r. 20 05 )) . “ C hal l enge by w ayof a habe a s pr oc e e di ng i s pr e f e r abl e be c a us e i tpe rm i t s the de f e nda ntt o de ve l op a re cord as t o w hatcoun se l di d, w hy i tw as do ne, and w hat , i f a ny, prej ud i ce re sul t ed. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . L a u g h lin , 933 F . 2d 786, 788- 89 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng U

ni te d State s v . P ope , 84 1 F . 2d 95 4, 95 8 (9th C i r. 19 88 )) . T here ar e, ho w ever , tw o “ extra ordi naryexce pt i on s t o thi s gener al rul e” : “ (1) w here the re cord on appe a l i s s uf

f i c i e nt l y de ve l ope d t o pe rm i tde t e rm i na t i on of the i s s ue , or( 2) w he r e the l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on i s s o i na de qua t e tha ti tobvi ous l y de ni e s ade f e nda nt9

hi s S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o cou nsel . ” J e r o n i mo , 398 F . 3d a t1156 ( c i t i ng U ni ted S ta te s v . D a

y c h ild , 3 5 7 F .3 d 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . N ei ther e xcept i on appl i es i n thi s c as e. Iti s notcl ea r f rom the re cord cu rr en tl y b ef

o re u s th at M cG o w an ’s co u n se l’ s p er fo rm an ce w as d ef icien t. “A c our tc ons i de r i ng ac l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e m us tappl y a‘ s tr ong pr e s um pt i on’ tha tc ouns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on w a s w i thi n the ‘ w i de r a nge ’ of re as on abl e profes si on al as si st ance . ” H arri ng ton v. R i chter , 131 S . C t . 770, 787 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 8 (19 84 )) . T here m ay w el l be l egi t i m at e j ust i fi ca t i on s f or an att orney nott o fi l e am ot i on for anew tri al i n a part i cul arca se . A s the F i rs tC i rc ui texpl ai ned i n d i sm i ss i ng a s i m i l ar i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m be c a us e i tw a s r a i s e d on di r e c tappe a l , “ t a c t i c a l a nd stra t egi c r ea sons w hy a party m i gh tse ek a j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al bu tno ta new tr i a l ” i nc l ude “ af

e a rtha tthe pr os e c ut i on w i l l l e a rn f r om i t s m i s t a ke s a nd puti n a m o r e p e r s u a s iv e c a s e th e s e c o n d tim e a r o u n d , af e a rth a t th e d e c is io n - m a k e rw ill t ake are qu es tfor a cqui tt al l es s s er i ou sl y i f apo ss i bl e c om prom i se – such as anew tri al – i s on the t abl e, or a f ea r thata s hi fti n j ud ges w i l l l ea d t o a st i ff erse nt ence . ” Mor an , 393 F . 3d a t10; s e e al s o T he us , 611 F . 3d a t447 ( r e j e c t i ng a§ 2255 pet i t i on er ’ s i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m w here hi s a tt orney had m ov ed for aj ud gm entof ac qu i tt al bu thad n otm ov ed for anew tri al because anew tri al10

w oul d ha ve a l l ow e d the gove rnm e ntt o “ s e e k as upe r c e di ng i ndi c tm e nt ” c ha r gi ng th e d efen d an tw i th a cri m e th atw o u l d “ yi el d a m u ch h i g h er sen t en ce”). T h ese consi dera t i on s c ou l d m ot i vat e a n att orney nott o see k a new tri al even aft erthe tri al j ud ge had al re ady gra nt ed a j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al . A ra t i on al defe nse a tt orney m i ghtnotw a ntt o pr ovi de a ny ba s i s f orthe di s tr i c tj udge t o a doptac om pr om i s e or r e c ons i de rhi s j udgm e nt , ort o e xpos e hi s c l i e ntt o the pos s i bi l i ty of s e nt e nc i ng b e f o r e ad if f e r e n t d is tr ic t ju d g e s h o u ld th e ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itta l b e r e v e r s e d . Iti s e qu al l y possi bl e, of course , thatcoun se l fa i l ed t o m ake anew tri al m ot i on because he w as un aw ar e of or m i sr ea d the appl i cabl e F eder al R ul es , or w as o th e rw is e d e f

ic ie n t in th e p e r f

o rm a n c e o f

h is d u tie s . See, e. g. , U ni ted Stat es v. Hi l l i a rd , 39 2 F . 3d 98 1, 98 6 (8th C i r. 20 04 ) ( concl ud i ng thata § 22 55 pet i t i on er had b ee n d epri ved o f e ff ec t i ve as si st ance w hen h i s tri al coun se l fa i l ed t o fi l e a m o tio n f o rn e w tr ia l, e v e n a f

te rb e in g d ir e c te d to d o s o b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, because he m i sapp re hend ed the fi l i ng deadl i ne). M cG ow an’ s c ou nsel has notye t h a d a n o p p o r tu n ity to e x p la in h is a c tio n s . Se e Mor e land , 622 F . 3d a t1157 ( hol di ng tha tthe r e c or d w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt l y de ve l ope d t o e nt e r t a i n a n i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e c la im in p a r t b e c a u s e “d e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a [ d ] n o t h a d a n o p p o r tu n ity to e xpl a i n hi s a c t i ons ” ) ( c i t i ng L a u g h lin , 9 3 3 F .2 d a t 7 8 9 ) . W e th e r e f o r e c a n n o t “te ll fr om [the] re cord w hether the [f ai l ure] t o see k a new tri al . . . w as a c al cul at ed11

stra t agem or a m er e overs i gh t . ” Mor an , 3 9 3 F . 3 d a t1 0 - 1 1 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d is m is s M c G o w a n ’s 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 c la im w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e to r e n e w in g it in a§ 2 2 5 5 p r o c e e d in g b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t ju d g e to w h o m th is c a s e w ill b e a s s ig n e d f

o llo w in g r e m a n d . I V. M c G ow a n c ont e nds , f

i na l l y , tha the w a s de pr i ve d of due pr oc e s s w he n the di s tr i c tc our tt ook i nt o a c c ountS e e ve r s ’ unr e l i abl e a l l e ga t i ons w he n i m pos i ng a 51 -m on th sent ence up on hi m . T o est abl i sh thathi s r i gh tt o d ue process w as vi ol at ed, M cG ow an m ustshow thatthe al l egat i on s w er e “ (1) f al se or un re l i abl e, and (2) dem on strabl y m ade the basi s f or the se nt ence . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. V a n derw erf

h o rst , 576 F . 3d 929, 935- 36 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni ted Stat es v. Ib a rra , 7 3 7 F .2 d 8 2 5 , 8 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . 1. “ F al se or un re l i abl e”

“ Ch a l l e n g e d i n f

o rma t i o n i s d e e me d f

a l s e o ru n r e l i ab l e i f

i tl a c k s ‘ s o me m i ni m al i nd i ci um of re l i abi l i ty bey on d m er e a l l egat i on . ’ ” I d. a t936 ( quot i ng Ib a rra , 737 F . 2d a t827) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tj udge abus e d hi s di s c r e t i on i n f i ndi ng thatS ee vers ’ cl ai m s w er e r el i abl e. S e e ve r s di d nott e s t i f

y a tM c G ow a n’ s tr i a l ors e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. I ns t e a d, the gove rnm e nts ubm i tt e d tw o doc um e nt s w hi c h c ont a i ne d hi s a l l e ga t i ons ofM cG o w an cl ai m ed th atth e reaso n S eev ers k n ew th e l o cat i o n o f h i s h o u se 3 w a s tha t , w he n M c G ow a n pur c ha s e d i t , he f ound S e e ve r s a nd s e ve r a l c om pa ni ons s qua tt i ng the r e . H e c ont e nde d tha the c a l l e d the pol i c e t o a i d i n e vi c t i ng the sq u att ers. 12 M cG ow an’ s drug act i vi ty. T he fi rs tw as a tra nscr i ptof an F B I i nt ervi ew . In that in te rv ie w , S e e v e r s to ld F B I a g e n ts th a t, w h ile o n p a r o le in 1 9 9 9 o r2 0 0 0 , h e h a d , in th e c o u r s e o f

a s s is tin g af

r ie n d , h ap p e n e d u p o n M c G o w a n ’s h o u s e . A c c o r d in g to S e e v e r s ’ s to ry , M c G o w a n r e c o g n iz e d h im f r o m h is tim e in C h in o , a n d in v ite d h im i nt o h i s hom e t o sno rtm etham ph et am i ne, an i nv i t at i on S ee vers ac ce pt ed. S ee vers c l a i m e d tha tl a t e r , on tw o s e pa r a t e oc c a s i ons , he ga ve M c G ow a n s pe e d, s om e of w hi ch he w as t o d el i ver t o i nm at es i n p ri son. F i nal l y, S ee vers cont ended that , af t er h e w a s a rr e s t e d a n d r e tu rn e d t o p r i s o n , M c G o w a n c a me t o h i s c e l l a n d g a v e h i m a qua r t e rgr a m of

s pe e d. T o c onf

i rm hi s s t ory , S e e ve r s a c c ur a t e l y de s c r i be d t o the agent s the l ocat i on of M cG ow an’ s hou se . 3 T he s e c ond doc um e ntw a s atr a ns c r i ptof S e e ve r s ’ t e s t i m ony i n the tr i a l of S ha y ne Z i s ka , aC hi no pr i s on gua r d w ho w a s c ha r ge d w i th m i s c onduc ti nvol vi ng s m uggl i ng drugs i nt o the pr i s on. S e e ve r s , apr os e c ut i on w i tne s s , w a s a s ke d on cr oss- exam i nat i on w hether he had al so re po rt ed thatM cG ow an engaged i n si m i l ar m i s de e ds . S e e ve r s c onf i rm e d tha the ha d, s a y i ng, “ I ’ d gi ve hi m drugs , a nd he w o u ld ta k e th e m b a c k in th e p r is o n .”13

T h e r e i s n o f

u r th e re v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d o ri n f e r e n c e th a tm i g h tb e d r a wn i n s uppor tof

S e e ve r s ’ e xtr e m e l y s e r i ous c ha r ge s , a nd no e xpl a na t i on a s t o w hy M cG o w an w o u l d h av e en g ag ed i n su ch fel o n i o u s co n d u ctw i th S eev ers. M o st im p o r ta n t, th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e h a d n o o p p o r tu n ity to o b s e rv e S e e v e r s in o r d e rto eval uat e hi s c re di bi l i ty, and n o o ne re pres ent i ng M cG ow an’ s i nt er es t s e ver had an o p p o r tu n ity to c r o s s - e x a m in e S e e v e r s in o r d e rto te s t th e v e r a c ity o f h is a c c u s a tio n s . W e c ons i de r e d as i m i l a rc ha l l e nge t o the r e l i abi l i ty of e vi de nc e a ts e nt e nc i ng i n U ni te d State s v . H

anna , 49 F . 3d 57 2 (9th C i r. 19 95 ). W e a gree w i th M cG ow an th a t H anna c o m p e ls u s to c o n c lu d e th a t S e e v e r s ’ a lle g a tio n s w e r e in s u f f ic ie n tly r e l i abl e t o be c ons i de r e d a ts e nt e nc i ng. F i r s t , S e e ve r s ’ a l l e ga t i ons , l i ke thos e of H a n n a ’ s a c c u s e r , w e r e n o ts u b j e c t e d t o ma n y o f

th e p r o c e d u r a l me c h a n i s ms tra di t i on al l y use d t o t es tw i tness t es t i m on y. T he fa ctthatS ee vers t es t i fi ed fl ee t i ng l y i n cou rt , un der oath, i n ano ther procee di ng – p re sum abl y the pri m ary basi s f or the di stri ctj ud ge’ s det erm i nat i on thathi s s t at em ent s w er e r el i abl e – do es noti n a nd of

i t s e l f j us t i f y af i ndi ng of r e l i abi l i ty . T he a l l e ga t i ons i n H anna w er e lik e w is e m a d e u n d e ro a th , b u t w e n e v e r th e le s s f o u n d th e m u n w o r th y o f c r e d e n c e . Se e i d. a t577. I n H

anna , m o re o v er , th e d istrict j u d g e w itn es se d th e a cc u se r’s te s tim o n y , a n d h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to e v a lu a te h is d e m e a n o ra n d c r e d ib ility . I d.14

H ere, th e d i stri ctj u d g e h ad b efo re h i m o n l y th e b are reco rd o f an al read yc o m p le te d tr ia l, in w h ic h S e e v e r s ’ m e n tio n o f M c G o w a n p la y e d a n e x tr e m e ly m i norpa r t . F ur the rm or e , the de f e nda nti n H

anna h a d a n o p p o r tu n ity , a lb e it lim ite d , to c r o s s - e x a m in e h is a c c u s e ra n d p r o b e th e v e r a c ity o f h is s ta te m e n ts . I

d. M cG ow an w as af

forded no such op po rtun i ty: i n fac t , S ee vers ’ st at em ent s w er e m a de i n atr i a l a tw hi c h no pa r ty ha d a ny i nc e nt i ve t o que s t i on hi s c l a i m s r e ga r di ng M c G o w a n . S e c o n d , th e r e is little r e a s o n , o th e rth a n th e f a c t th a t h e w a s u n d e ro a th , to be l i e ve S e e ve r s ’ c l a i m s . H e ha d “ e ve ry thi ng t o ga i n a nd nothi ng t o l os e by im p lic a tin g ” M c G o w a n . I d. a t 5 7 8 . A s aja ilh o u s e in f o rm a n t, h e p r e s u m ab ly p ro v i d ed i n fo rm at i o n t o th e F B I i n th e h o p e o f b ei n g g ran t ed so m e so rto f l en i en cy, and cou l d b e e xp ec t ed t o con fi rm the truth o f thi s i nform at i on w hen h e t es t i fi ed at tr ia l. C f . G onz alezv . W

ong , N o . 0 8 - 9 9 0 2 5 , 2 0 1 1 W L 6 0 6 1 5 1 4 , a t * 3 3 - * 3 7 ( 9 th C i r. D ec . 7, 20 11 ) ( W . F l et cher , J. , concurri ng ) ( re coun t i ng a 198 9-90 L os A ng el es C ou nty G ra nd Juryi nv es t i gat i on thatre veal ed the di sturbi ng ea se and fre qu ency w i th w h i c h j a i l h o u s e i n f o rma n t s p r o v i d e d f

a l s e t e s t i mo n y ) . Se e v e r s ’ c l a i ms r e ga r di ng M c G ow a n w e r e , m or e ove r , c om pl e t e l y unc orr obor a t e d: tha the kne w the l ocat i on of M cG ow an’ s hom e s ay s nothi ng abou tw hether hi s a ss ert i on s that M c G ow a n s m oke d m e tha m phe t a m i ne w i th hi m a nd s m uggl e d drugs i nt o pr i s on15

w e r e true , e s pe c i a l l y gi ve n the c onf l i c t i ng e xpl a na t i ons of

how S e e ve r s l e a rne d of th e a d d r e s s . In sum , S ee vers ’ al l egat i on s w er e m ade und eroath b utabse ntany other p r o c e d u r a l m e c h a n is m th a t w o u ld e n s u r e th a t aw itn e s s w ith th e in c e n tiv e to lie w as t el l i n g th e tru th . T h ey w ere “no to n l y i n co n si st en tw i th [M cG o w an ’ s] d en i al s, bu tw er e unsup po rt ed by . . . any other e vi dence. ” H anna , 49 F . 3d at57 8. T hey th e r e f o r e la c k e d th e r e q u is ite “m in im a l in d ic iu m o f r e liab ility ” to s e rv e a s ab a s is f o rM c G o w a n ’s s e n te n c e . 2. “ D em on strabl y m ade the basi s f or the se nt ence ” I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rade f e nda ntha s s how n tha tunr e l i abl e i nf orm a t i on w a s “ de m ons tr abl y m a de the ba s i s f or[ hi s ] s e nt e nc e , ” w e “ r e a d the r e c or d a nd deci de w hether r el i ance on [the] i nform at i on . . . prob abl y di d o cc ur. ” U ni ted State s v . C or r al , 17 2 F . 3d 71 4, 71 6 (9th C i r. 19 98 ). S ee vers ’ al l egat i on s w er e pl a i nl y af

a c t ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i on. A tthe out s e tof the h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e s a id , “A s th e d e f e n d a n t h a s p r o p e r ly a n d c o rr e c tly gl e a ne d, the C our tw a s c onc e rne d aboutthe tr a ns c r i pttha tthe gove rnm e nt prov i ded i n the m att erof the U ni t ed S t at es v. S hane Z i ska. ” H e f urther s t at ed, af

t er de s c r i bi ng the na tur e of the a s s a ul t s f

orw hi c h M c G ow a n w a s c onvi c t e d, tha tthe

“ [b] i gg erprob l em i s the prob l em ra i se d b y M r. S ee vers . T hati s unforgi vabl e. ”T h e g o v e rn m e n t a s s e r ts th a t th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e ’s la te rs ta te m e n ts a t a 4 hear i ng for bai l pend i ng appeal dem on stra t e thatS ee vers ’ al l egat i on s had no such ef fe ct . A tthe heari ng , the j ud ge sa i d that“ [i ] tw ou l d h ave been the sa m e s ent ence ” w i th o u tth e S eev ers al l eg at i o n s, an d th at“ S eev ers d o esn ’ ten t er i n t o i t . ” T h ese c om m e nt s a r e , how e ve r , di f f i c ul tt o r e c onc i l e w i th hi s e a r l i e rs t a t e m e nt s a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a nd the r e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 32. I n a ddi t i on, the di s tr i c tj udge s ta te d a t th e b a il h e a r in g th a t S e e v e r s ’ a lle g a tio n s w e r e af a c to rin h is d e c is io n to r e j e c tthe pr oba t i on of

f i c e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on tha tM c G ow a n r e c e i ve as e nt e nc e of p r o b a tio n . T h a t a lo n e is s u f f ic ie n t f o rth e a lle g a tio n s to h a v e b e e n m a d e th e b a s is f orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. 16 M os ti m por t a nt , i n the c our s e of e xpl a i ni ng w hy he ha d c hos e n t o i m pos e the se nt ence he di d, the di stri ctj ud ge expl i ci t l y f ou nd thatS ee vers ’ cl ai m s w er e r e liab le . U n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 , as e n te n c in g c o u r t “m u s t – f o ra n y . . . c o n tr o v e r te dm a tte r–ru le o n th e d is p u te o rd e te rm in e th a t aru lin g is unne c e s s a ry e i the rbe c a us e the m a tt e rw i l l nota f f e c ts e nt e nc i ng, orbe c a us e the c o u r t w ill n o t c o n s id e rth e m a tte rin s e n te n c in g .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) ; se e al so U ni ted Stat es v. C arter , 219 F . 3d 863, 867 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( I f as e nt e nc i ng c o u r t “c h o o s e s n o t to r e ly u p o n ad is p u te d f a c tu a l s ta te m e n t . . . it m u s t c le a r ly st at e thatthe di sput ed fa ctw as no tt aken i nt o acc ou nt . ”) . T he di stri ctj ud ge nei ther s ta te d th a t aru lin g w a s u n n e c e s s a ry n o rth a t th e d is p u te d f a c t w a s n o t ta k e n in to a c c ount . T ha the i ns t e a d c om pl i e d w i th hi s obl i ga t i on unde rR ul e 32 by m a ki ng a ru l i n g th atS eev ers’ cl ai m s w ere reli ab l e l eav es l i tt l e ro o m t o d o u b tth atS eev ers’ uns uppor t e d c l a i m s a f

f e c t e d the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. 417

3. R e a s s i gnm e nt M c G o w a n r e q u e s ts th a t w e r e m a n dto ad if f e r e n t ju d g e f

o rr e - s e n te n c in g . T he s e nt e nc i ng j udge ’ s s t a t e m e nt s a tthe ba i l he a r i ng s tr ongl y s ugge s ttha the w oul d r e i m pos e a51- m onth s e nt e nc e w e r e thi s c a s e r e m a nde d t o hi m . B e c a us e he w oul d l i ke l y ha ve “ s ubs t a nt i a l di f f i c ul ty i n putt i ng outof

hi s . . . m i nd pr e vi ous l y - e xpr e s s e d vi e w s , ” be c a us e hi s i nabi l i ty t o do s o c oul d unde rm i ne the appearance of j ust i ce i n these proceedi ng s, and b ec ause re -s ent enci ng before a di ff er entj ud ge w ou l d i nv ol ve m i ni m al du pl i ca t i on of ef fort , re as si gn m entt o a new ju d g e is ap p r o p r ia te . U n ite d S ta te s v . A rn e tt , 62 8 F . 2d 11 62 , 11 65 (9th C i r. 19 79 ).

V. W e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o m ake acond i t i on al n ew tri al ru l i n g atth e t i m e i tg ran t ed M cG o w an ’ s m o t i o n fo r acq u i tt al . W e al so ho l d thatw e c anno t , on thi s app ea l , det erm i ne w hether M cG ow an’ s c ou nsel w as c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y d e f

i c i e n ti n f

a i l i n g t o r e q u e s ts u c h aru l i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i rm M c G ow a n’ s c onvi c t i on, butw i thoutpr e j udi c e t o hi s f

i l i ng ac l a i m f

or i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l i n a § 2 25 5 p roce edi ng . W e a l so concl ud e that M c G ow a n’ s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s w a s vi ol a t e d w he n the di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d on un re l i abl e, un subst ant i at ed al l egat i on s i n i m po si ng hi s s ent ence . W e there foreU pon r e m a nd, i n a ddi t i on t o f i l i ng a§ 2255 pe t i t i on r e ga r di ng i ne f f e c t i ve 5 a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l be f

or e the ne w j udge t o be a s s i gne d, M c G ow a n m a y m a ke w ha t e ve rf

ur the rf i l i ng he de e m s appr opr i a t e , i nc l udi ng am ot i on f orba i l . W e de ny hi s pendi ng oral bai l m ot i on w i tho utprej ud i ce . 18 vaca t e M cG ow an’ s s ent ence and rem and for further procee di ng s bef ore adi stri ct j ud ge w ho has notprevi ou sl y pre si ded o ver thi s c as e. 5 AF F I RME D in p a r t, VA C A TED i n pa r ta nd R EM A N D ED .19

CO UN S E L L I S T I NG A ndr e B i r ott e J r . , U . S . A tt orne y , L os A nge l e s , C A ; R obe r tE . D ugda l e , A s s i s t a nt U . S . A tt o rn ey, L o s A n g el es, C A ; L aw ren ce S . M i d d l et o n , A ssi st an tU . S . A tt o rn ey, L o s An g e l e s , C A; E l a n aS h a v i tArt s o n , As s i s t a n tU. S . Att o rn e y , L o s An g e l e s , C A; for P l ai nt i ff

-A pp el l ee . D e nni s P . R i or da n, S a n F r a nc i s c o, C A ; D ona l d M . H or ga n, S a n F r a nc i s c o, C A ; f or D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.