UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TR AVIS C HELB ER G, aka

Whispe r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-55555

DC Nos. C V 13-00453 B TM

C R 09-00365 B TM O R D E R

B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd GR AB ER , C i rc uit Judge s. The M e m orandum

file d M ay 6, 2016, is withdra

wn a nd re pla c e d by

a c orre c te d M e m orandum

file d c onc urre ntly

with this Order, whic h c orre c ts the
se nte nc e im

pose d on De fe nda

nt. W ith tha

t c orre c tion, thepa

n e l ha s vote d to de ny the p e tition for pa

n e l re he aring. Judge s Silve rm an a nd Gra be r vote to de ny

the pe tition for re he a

ring e n ba nc and JudgeTa shim a

so re c om m e n ds. The full c ourt ha s be e n a dvise d of the pe tition for re he aring e n ba n c and no judge of the c o urt ha s re que s te d a

vote on e n ba

nc re he aring. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 35(f). Thepe tition for pa ne l re he aring a

nd the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc are de nie d. No furthe r pe titions for pa

ne l re he aring a

nd/or re he aring e n ba

nc with re s pe c t

to the c orre c te d M e m orandum

will bee nte rta i ne d. 

# FIL ED JUN 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TR AVIS C HELB ER G, aka

Whispe r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-55555

DC Nos. C V 13-0453 B TM

C R 09-0365 B TM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry Te d M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

April 6, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Tra vis C he lbe rg file d

a m otion for post-c onvic t ion
re lie f in the distric t c ourt unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255, c la im ing ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. C he lbe rg argue d that his trial attorne y ’ s a dvic e – to a dm it in his ple a 

# FIL ED JUN 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ).a gre e m e nt tha t he qua lifie d a s a

c are e r offe nde r unde r the Se nte nc ing Guide line s – wa s c onstitutiona

lly ina de quate . The distric t

c o urt de nie d the m otion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. §§ 2253(a) and 2255(d), a nd we a ffirm
. I. In 2009, C he lbe rg wa s c ha rge d with: (1) be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of fire arm s in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g), 924(a )(1); and (2) c onspira c y

to distributem e tha

m phe tam ine in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841, 846. W h ile in
c ustody on the se c ha

rge s , C he lbe rg atta c k e d

a fe llow prisoner. B a se d on this inc i de nt, a

supe rse ding inform ation wa s file d , c ha rging C he lbe rg with a ssa

ult with inte nt to c om

m it a fe lony (witne ss ta

m pe ring), in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 7, 113(a )(2). Ta

ke n toge the r, the fore going c ha rge s would ha

ve subje c te d C he lbe rg to signific ant prison time . C he lbe rg ple a d e d guilty to the fe lon in posse ssion a nd
a ssa ult c ha rge s. In e xc ha

nge , the gove rnm e nt a g re e d to dismiss thec onspira c y c ha rge , whic h c arrie d the he av ie st pote ntia l se nte nc e . The ple a a gre e m e nt a l so sta

te d tha t C h e lbe rg qua lifie d for a c are e r offe nde r e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1. At these n te nc ing he aring C h e l be rg him se lf,
se pa ra te from his a ttorne y , ra i se d que stions a bout whe the r his pre dic ate offe nse s prope rly qua lifie d for a

pplic ation of thec are e r offe nde r e nha nc e m e nt. The
se nte nc ing judgefound C he lbe rg’ s c onc e rns to be without m e rit. The judge - 2 -im

pose d a 120-m o nth se n te nc e of im prisonm e nt a s to C o unt 1 a nd a c onse c utive 48-m onth se nte nc e a s to C ount 2, for a n a ggre gate se nte nc e of 168 m onths (14 y e ars).In Fe brua

ry 2013, C h e lbe rg file d a

m otion for post-c onvic tion re lie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255. As he

did a t the se nte nc ing he a

ring, C he lbe rg a

rgue d tha t one of his pre dic ate offe nse s c ould not properly be c ounte d whe n

a pply ing the c are e r offe nde r e nha

n c e m e n t. W e re the c ourt una ble to c ount the pre d ic ate offe nse , C he lbe rg argue s tha

t he would not qua

lify for the e nha

nc e m e nt. Thus, C he lbe rg be lie ve s tha

t the attorne y

who ne gotia

te d his ple a

a gre e m e nt a

nd re p re se nte d him
at the se nte nc ing he aring provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l by

a dvising C he lbe rg to a dm it c are e r offe nde r status. Thedistric t c o urt de nie d the § 2255
m otion a n d gra nte d a C e rtific ate of Appe a l a

bility (“ C OA” ) a s to tha

t issue
. I I. To prove ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l whe n a ha

be a s pe titione r ha s ple a de d guilty , a

de fe nda nt m ust show tha

t: (1) “ c ounse l’ s re pre s e ntation fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

b le ne ss,” Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984); a

nd (2) “ the re is a

re a sona b le proba bility tha t, but for
c ounse l’ s e rrors, [the de fe nda nt] would not ha

ve ple a de d guilty

an d would ha

ve insiste d on going to tria

l,” Hill v . Loc k

hart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). He re , - 3 -C he lbe rg’ s attorne y ’ s re pre s e ntation tha t C h e lbe rg qua lifie d for the c are e r offe nde r e nha nc e m e nt did not fall be l o w a n obje c tive sta

n da rd of re a sona

ble ne ss. 1 To qua lify

for a c are e r offe nde r e nha

nc e m e nt, a

de fe nda nt m ust be an a dult
c ha rge d with “ a

fe lony tha t is e ithe r a

c rim e of viole nc e or a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse ” and ha

ve “ at le a st two prior fe lony c onvic tions of e ithe r a

c rim e of viole nc e or a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1(a ). The Guide line s de fine “ two prior fe lony c o nvic tions” a s inc luding two fe lony c onvic t ions tha t “ are c ounte d se pa

ra t e ly ” unde r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c ). Id . § 4B 1 .2(c ). Prior offe nse s a re c ounte d se pa

ra te l y if the y “ w e re im p ose d for offe n se s tha

t we re se pa ra te d by an inte rve ning a

rre st.” Id . § 4A1.2(a)(2). The distric t c ourt he ld tha t C he l be rg qua lifie d for the e nha n c e m e n t ba se d on two prior fe lony c o nvic t ions. F irst , in 1996, C he l be rg wa s c onvic te d of a ssa ult with a fire arm , in viola

tion of C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 245(a )(2). Se c ond, in 1999,

1 W e ne e d not re a c h the se c ond prong of the Stric k land ana ly sis. W e note , howe ve r, tha

t C he l be rg re c e ive d the ple a ba rga in he re que ste d. - 4 -C he lbe rg wa s c onvic te d of posse ssion of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e for sa le , in viola tion of C a lifornia

He a lth a nd Sa fe ty C ode § 11378. 2 C he lbe rg argue s tha

t his 1999 posse ssion c onvic tion doe s not qua lify a s a pre d ic ate offe nse , be c a

use the gove rnm e n t did not pre se nt e vide nc e tha t it wa s se pa ra te d from the 1999 tra

nsporta tion c onvic t ion by

an inte rve ning a

rre st. 3 Howe ve r, the PSR

sta te d tha t the 1999 c onvic tions w e re se pa rat e d by an inte rve ning a

rre st. C he lbe rg ne ve r obje c te d to or othe rwise que stione d the
a c c ura c y of the PSR , a lthough hewa s give n the opportunity

to do so a

t his
se nte nc ing he aring, nor did he a dduc e any

e vide n c e re futing this point. It wa s thus obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e for the attorne y

to re ly on the unc onte s te d fa c ts a s sta te d in the PSR whe n a dvising C h e lbe rg to a d m i t c are e r offe nde r status in his ple a . Se e

2 On the sa

m e da y tha t C he lbe rg wa s se nte nc e d on the posse ssion c ha rge , he wa s se n te nc e d on a se pa rate c h a rge of tra nsporting a

c ontrolle d substa nc e , in viola

tion of C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11379(a). The transporta tion c onvic tion did not c le arly qua lify a s a prior c ontrolle d substa

nc e c onvic tion, a

nd the c ourt did not re ly

on it in a pply i ng the c are e r offe nde r e nha nc e m e nt. The Pre -Se nte nc e Inve stiga tion R e port (“ PSR ” ) indic ate d tha t C he lbe rg wa s a

rre ste d on the tra

nsporta tion c ha rge a bout four m onths a fte r his arre st on theposse ssion c ha rge . 3 C he lbe rg’ s a

rgum e nt re sts on thepre m ise tha t be c a u se the s e two c onvic tions we re not sepa ra te d by an inte rve ning a

rre st, unde r the Guide line s, the y should betre ate d a s a

singleoffe nse , a

nd be c a use transporta

t ion doe s not qua lify

a s a c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse , his 1999 c onvic tion is not a qua l ify ing c are e r offe nde r offe nse . W e ne e d not a ddre ss this issue be c a use , a s e xpla ine d in thete xt, a bove , the pre m ise of C he lbe rg’ s a rgum e nt fa ils. - 5 -Hill , 474 U.S. a t 61-62 (W

hite , J., c onc urring) (noting tha t the re wa s “ n o fa c tua l ba sis for sugge sting tha

t attorne y ’ s a dvic e wa s inc om pe te nt” whe re the re wa s no e vide nc e tha

t the pe titione r c o nve y e d

a c ritic a l fa c t to theattorne y ); U nite d State

s
v . Robe rts , 5 F.3d 365, 371-72 (9th C ir. 1993) (holding tha t c ounse l’ s a d

v ic e wa s obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e whe re the re wa s no e v ide nc e tha t the a l le ge d ina c c ura c ie s in the PSR a c tua lly e xiste d). 4 III. C he lbe rg ra ise s a

num be r of othe r argum e nts on a ppe a l tha t a re not inc lude d in the C O A. “ In fe de ra l ha be a s c orpus proc e e dings, thee xe rc ise of a ppe lla te jurisdic tion is de

pe nde nt e ntire ly

upon theissua

nc e of a C OA.” Unite d State

s v . W .R. Grac e , 526 F.3d 499, 522 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ) (e llipsis om

itte d ) (quoting Phe lps v . Alame da , 366 F.3d 722, 726 (9th C ir. 2004)); se e also 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(c ). W e m ay

e xpa nd the C OA, se e Ninth C ir. R
. 22-1(e ), but “ only if the
a pplic ant ha s m a de a substa ntia l showing of the de nia l of a c onstitutiona

l right.” Murray v . Sc h r iro , 745 F.3d 984, 1002 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C
. §

4 It follows a l so tha

t the distric t c ourt did not err in re l y i ng on the unc ha lle nge d PSR
. Se e Unite d State s v . Rome ro-Re ndon , 220 F.3d 1159, 1161 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ [A] distric t c o urt m ay

re ly on a n unc ha lle nge d

PSR at se nte nc ing to find . . . tha

t the fa c ts unde rly ing a

se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nt ha

ve be e n e sta blishe d.” ). - 6 -2253(c )(2)). B e c a use C he lbe rg ha s not m a d e suc h a showing, wede c line to
e xpa nd the C OA. AFFIRM E D.

- 7 -