FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14234 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN os. 06 -021 53 -C V -B B M -1 & 05 -000 56 C R -1-1 R O N U K R . G E N G E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ 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 N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 30, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , p e titio n e rp le d g u ilty p u r s u a n t to a p le a a g r e e m e n t toThis was the four th count of the indictment re turned ag ainst petitioner. The other 1 counts cha

rg ed petitioner w ith using the internet to induce a minor to eng ag e in criminal sexual a c tiv ity, trave lin gin inters tatec omm e rc eto h avese x with a min or , a nd c ro ssinga

statelin ewi th intent to eng ag e in a se xual ac t with a child under theag e of 12. This was consistent with the par ties’ joint recommendation under the plea agreement. 2 Acc ordingto the presentenceinvestigation report, the ter m of the Guidelines rang e for 3 supervised relea se wa s two year s to life. The pa rties’ plea agreement did not address the issue of supervised relea se. At sentenc ing, theGover nment, in response to the c ourt’s inquiry as to an a pp ropriatesu

perv ise d re le a seterm , s aid t hat th eterm

sh ould b e“ fa

r a bo vethetw o [ye ar t e rm ] which would be theguideline minimum . . . any thing under ten year s wouldn’t be suff icient.” The plea agreement, in paragraph 10, c ontained a limited sentenc e-a ppeal waiver whic h 4 is not explicitly

implicated in this appeal. 2 k n o w in g ly tr a n s p o rtin g a n d s h ip p in g in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e c h ild p o r n o g r ap h y , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2252A ( a ) ( 1) . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d hi m on 1 S e pt e m be r7, 2005, t o a pr i s on t e r m of 121 m onths , w hi c h w a s a tthe l ow e nd of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e r a nge of 121 t o 151 m onths , a nd e i ghty e a r s of 2 s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . P e titio n e rd id n o t o b je c t to h is s e n te n c e ; n o rd id h e ap p e a l it. 3 4 On September

8, 2006, petitioner moved the district c ourt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to v a c a te h is s e n te n c e o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e G o v e r n m e n t’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n a s to th e te r m o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e b r e a c h e d th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. T h e c o u r t d e n ie d h is m ot i on, c onc l udi ng tha tunde rthe pl a i n e rr ordoc tr i ne , the m ot i on w a s due t o be de ni e d be c a us e , a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, pe t i t i one rvoi c e d no obj e c t i on t o the t e r m of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e a f

t e rthe c our ti m pos e d i t . P e t i t i one rf i l e d a not i c e of appe a l , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty ( “ C O A ” ) on one3

i ss ue: w hether the G ov ernm entbrea ched the pl eaagre em entw hen i tre com m ended a t erm of supervi se d rel ea se hi gh erthan t he l ow end o f the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r a n g e . P e t i t i one ra r gue s tha tpur s ua ntt o the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , he e xpe c t e d t o r e c e i ve ze ro ye ar s of s up ervi se d rel ea se because the t erm “ gu i del i nes r ange, ” a s i tw as used i n t he agree m ent , i ncl ud ed any app l i cabl e t erm of supervi se d rel ea se . H e c on ce des tha the di d notobj e c ta ts e nt e nc i ng t o the a l l e ge d br e a c h of the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , but a r gue s tha the i s ne ve r the l e s s pe r m i tt e d t o r a i s e the a l l e ge d br e a c h i n a § 2255 m o tio n a n d th a t th e p la in e r r o rs ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w ap p lie s . P r oc e dur a l i s s ue s tha tm us tbe r e s ol ve d be f or e w e c a n a ddr e s s the unde r l y i ng c l a i m s pe c i f i e d i n a C O A a r e pr e s um e d t o be e nc om pa s s e d w i thi n the C O A . M cC oy v. U ni t ed S t at es , 26 6 F . 3d 12 45 , 12 48 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). S ee a l s o W r i ghtv. S e c ’ y D e p’ tof C or r . , 278 F . 3d 1245, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2002) (e xp l ai ni ng thatw here a C O A i s gra nt ed w i th res pectt o the m er i t s of a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im , w e a s s u m e th a t th e C O A e n c o m p a s s e s a n y th r e s h o ld pr oc e dur a l i s s ue s tha tm us tbe a ddr e s s e d be f or e r e a c hi ng the m e r i t s , e ve n i f the C O A is s ile n t w ith r e s p e c t to th o s e th r e s h o ld is s u e s ) . A de f e nda ntw ho f

a i l s t o obj e c ta tthe tr i a l c our tl e ve l t o e r r orhe be l i e ve s the c o u r t h a s c o m m itte d o rf a ils to r a is e s u c h o b

je c tio n o n ap p e a l is p r o c e d u r a lly4

ba r r e d f r om pr e s e nt i ng hi s obj e c t i on i n a m ot i on s ubs e que nt l y f i l e d unde r22 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 absenta s ho w i ng of cause a nd prej ud i ce or a f un dam ent al m is c a r r ia g e o f

ju s tic e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . F r a d y , 4 5 6 U .S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 6 - 6 8 , 1 0 2 S .C t. 1584, 1593- 94, 71 L . E d. 2d 816 ( 1982) ; M i l l s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 36 F . 3d 1052, 1055 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . W e ha ve appl i e d the c a us e a nd pr e j udi c e s t a nda r d t o a § 2255 c l a i m tha tthe gove r nm e ntbr e a c he d the pa r t i e s ’ pl e a a gr e e m e nt . S e e M a r t or a na v. U ni t ed S t at es , 87 3 F . 2d 28 3, 28 5 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( appl yi ng cause a nd prej ud i ce s ta n d a r d w h e r e , d e s p ite h a v in g k n o w le d g e o f th e c o n te n ts o f

th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, the de f e nda ntdi d notobj e c ta ts e nt e nc i ng on the gr ound tha tthe gove r nm e nt brea ched the pl eaagre em ent ). A pri soner c ol l at er al l y a tt ac ki ng hi s c on vi ct i on ca n est ab l i sh cau se “ i f h e can sh o w th at‘ so m e o b j ect i v e fact o r ex t ern al t o th e d efen se i m pe de d c ouns e l ’ s e f

f or t s t o c om pl y w i th the . . . pr oc e dur a l rul e . . . . ’ ” R e e c e v. U ni t ed S t at es , 11 9 F . 3d 14 62 , 14 65 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( qu ot i ng M urra y v. C arri er , 4 7 7 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 8 , 1 0 6 S .C t. 2 6 3 9 , 2 6 4 5 - 4 6 , 9 1 L .E d .2 d 3 9 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) . W e can n o tp ercei v e h o w p et i t i o n er co u l d sh o w cau se i n th i s case, m u ch l ess p r e ju d ic e . W h e n , d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e c o u r t a s k e d th e p r o s e c u to rif the G ove r nm e ntha d a r e c om m e nda t i on r e ga r di ng s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , the prosec ut or t ol d the court : “ I don ’ tbel i eve [ supervi se d rel ea se w as ] on e of the thi ngs w e di s c us s e d i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt . ” T hi s obvi ous l y m e a nttw o thi ngs : ( 1)5

the part i es , i n n egot i at i ng the pl eaagre em ent , di d n otdi sc uss s up ervi se d rel ea se , a n d ( 2 ) th e p le a a g r e e m e n t th e r e f o r e d id n o t a d d r e s s th e m a tte r . C o n trary t o w h atth e p ro secu t o r t o l d th e co u rt , p et i t i o n er rep resen t s i n h i s § 22 55 m ot i on thatthe pl eaagre em entdi d add re ss the m att erof supervi se d rel ea se , a nd he a s s e r t s tha tthe G ove r nm e ntbr e a c he d the a gr e e m e ntby notr e c om m e ndi ng a tw o-ye art erm of supervi se d rel ea se , the t erm se tatthe l ow end o f the G ui del i nes r a nge . I f pe t i t i one ra nd hi s a tt or ne y a c tua l l y be l i e ve d tha tthe pl e a a gr e e m e nt re qu i re d t he G ov ernm entt o m ake thatl ow -e nd re com m endat i on , hi s a tt orney s h o u ld h a v e in te r v e n e d im m e d ia te ly , ta k e n is s u e w ith w h a t th e p r o s e c u to rh a d s a id , a nd i nf or m e d the c our ttha tthe G ove r nm e ntw a s obl i ga t e d t o r e c om m e nd a tw oy e a rt e r m of

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . T he a tt or ne y di d noti nt e r ve ne , how e ve r , a nd w h e n th e c o u r t im p o s e d a n e ig h t- y e a rte r m v o ic e d n o o b je c tio n a t a ll. W e r e w e to r e m a n d th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s o th a t p e titio n e rc o u ld s h o w c a u s e w h y h is a tto r n e y d id n o t o b je c t to w h a t th e p r o s e c u to rto ld th e c o u r t, w hatexcuse coul d p et i t i on eroffe r f or coun se l ’ s f

ai l ure t o i nt ervene? P et i t i on erhas notc l a i m e d i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on tha tc ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o i nt e r ve ne a nd c ha l l e nge the prosecut or’ s s t at em ent , or fa i l ure t o o bj ec tt o the ei gh t -y ea r t erm af t erthe court i m p o s e d i t , c o n s t i tu t e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e u n d e rth e S i x th Am e n d m e n t . An d we can n o ti m ag i n e th atso m e o b j ect i v e fact o r ex t ern al t o th e d efen se w o u l d cau se6

c o u n s e l to s ta n d s ile n t. I n s u m , th e r e is n o n e e d to r e m a n d th is c a s e to p e r m it p etit io n erto attem p t t o es tab li sh ca u se , an d re su lt in g p re ju d ice, fo r c o u n se l’ s s ile n c e o ra m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e . P e titio n e r ’s b r e a c h - o f - th e - p le a a g r e e m e n t c la im i s proce du ra l l y def

aul t ed. T he courtw as there fore re qu i re d t o d eny pet i t i on erthe § 2 2 5 5 rel i ef h e seek s. A F F I R M E D .