## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r25,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 2134 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) J E S U S F A L L S ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. Ci v- 05 - 25 4 J P/ W D S)

OR DER B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. J es us Fal l s s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 pet i t i on t o vaca t e, m odi fy , or s etas i de hi s s ent ence . I n addi t i on, M r . Fal l s s eeks t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . I n hi s § 2255 pet i t i on, M r . Fal l s al l eged i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and a vi ol at i on of hi s Si xt h A m endmentr i ght s art i cul at ed i n Appr endiv. New Jers ey , B l akel y v. Was hi ngt on , and B ookerv. Uni t ed Stat es . 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) ; 542 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ); 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). F o r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s e t fo rth byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s w el l - r eas oned or der , w e denyM r . Fal l s ’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and di s m i s s t hi s m at t er . W e al s o denyhi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris .-2- I . BA CKGROUND I n D ece m berof 2002, a j ur yi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D istri ct of

N ew M ex ico fo u n d M r. F all s g u il tyo f d istri b u ti o n o f 5 0 g ram s o r m o re of a c ocai ne s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a coc ai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 846( b) ( 1) ( A ) and cons pi r acyt o comm i tt hatoffe ns e i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . M r. F a ll’s a rre st a n d c o n v ictio n w e re th e re su lt o f a 2 0 0 1 “b u y/bu st” set up b ythe A lbu q u erq u e P o li ce D ep artm en t i n w h ich M r. Fal l s and hi s co- cons pi r at or , M r . R odr i guez, s ol d appr oxi m at el yfi ve ounce s of c o c a in e -b a s e d s u b s ta n c e to a n u n d e r- c o v e r o ffic e r. O n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. F a lls filed th e in sta n t pr o s e 28 U . S. C . § 2255 pet i t i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ecthi s s ent ence . H e ar gued thathe had r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n vi ol at i on of the Si xth A m endment beca us e hi s couns el fai l ed t o 1) i ntr oduce a t ape r ecor di ng of the drug deal at i s s ue; 2) i nt r oduce hi s cel l phone r ecor ds ; and 3) pr es entexpertw i tnes s t es t i m ony re g a rd in g th e a b s e n c e o f fin g e rp ri n ts o n th e p la s tic b a g s th a t c o n ta in e d th e d ru g s . M r . Fal l s al s o s oughtr el i ef on the gr ounds t hathi s s ent ence w as uncons t i tut i onal u n d er Appr endiv. New Jers ey , B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , and B ookerv. Uni t ed Stat es . 530 U . S. at466; 542 U . S. at296; 543 U . S. at220. T h e d istri ct co u rtd ism issed M r. F all s’ sen tenc ing claim s b ec au se 1 ) M r. F al l s di d n ot r ai se hi s Appr endicl ai m s on appea l ; and 2) beca us e B lakel y di d not a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly to c o n v ic tio n s th a t w e re fin a l o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . U. S. v. P r i ce ,-3-

400 F. 3d 844, 849 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . M r . Fal l s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on J une 5, 20 04 . T he d i stri ctcou rtdir ect ed the go vernm ent t o respon d to M r. F al l s’ i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s . A ft err evi ew i ng M r . Fal l s ’ br i ef a nd t he governm entr es pons e, t he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thatM r . Fal l s ’ § 2255 m o ti o n b e d en ied. T h e d istri ct co u rtthen rev iew ed the m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rt an d rec o m m en d ati o n an d M r. F all s’ objecti o n s, ad o p ted th e m ag istrate jud g e’s re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , a n d d is m is s e d M r. F a lls ’ c la im s w ith p reju d ic e . I I . DI S CU S S I ON I n or dert o obt ai n a C O A , M r . Fal l s m us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . M r . Fal l s m aym ake t hi s s how i ng bydemonstr at i ng t hat“j ur i s t s of r eas on coul d di s agr ee w i th the d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f th e c a se o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . “[A ] cl ai m can be debat abl e eve n though everyj ur i s tof r eas on m i ght a g re e , af

ter th e C O A h a s b e e n g ra n ted a n d th e c a se h a s re c e iv e d f u ll cons i der at i on, t hat[the] pet i t i onerw i l l notpr evai l . ” Id . at338. H ere , fo r sub stan ti all ythe s am e re aso n s set fo rth in the m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rtan d rec o m m en d ati o n , ad o p ted b ythe d istri ct co u rt , w e c o n clud e tha t M r. Fal l s i s notent i t l ed t o a C O A . M r . Fal l s ’ i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s s at i s fy nei t hert he per form ance nort he pr ej udi ce pr ong of the t es ts etfor th i n Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on . 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 6 -87 (19 8 4 ). P ri m aril y , as th e d istri ct co u rt-4-

found, M r . Fal l s fai l ed t o s uppor thi s al l egat i ons thatthe audi o t ape of the drug d ea l w as a u d ible o r th at i t con tai n ed an yex cu lpato ryev iden ce . S ec o n d ly , M r. Fal l s cannotdemonstr at e thathi s cel l phone r ecor ds w oul d have be en of a ny pr obat i ve val ue athi s t r i al . T hi r dl y , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thata fi ngerpr i nt expertw oul d have be en of a nyval ue t o M r . Fal l s cas e s i nce the governm ent s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e fa c tt h e h i s fi n g e rp r i n t s we r e n o to n th e b a g s o f c r a c k . I n s u m, t her e i s no col or abl e ar gum entt hatM r . Fal l s ’ att orneyw as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nt r oduce the t ape r ecor di ng, M r . Fal l s ’ cel l - phone r ecor ds orcal l a fi ngerpr i nt e x p e rt . T u rnin g to M r. F all s’ sen tenc ing claim s, as th e d istri ct co u rtn o ted, M r. F all s’ Appr endicl ai m w as pr ocedur al l ybarr ed bec aus e he fai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue o n a p p e a l. Uni t ed Stat es v. C ox , 83 F. 3d 336, 341 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( “A § 2255 m ot i on i s notavai l abl e t o t es tt he l egal i tyof a mat t erw hi ch s houl d have be en raised o n d ir ec t app ea l. ”). Fu rth erm o re, no reli ef is av ail ab le un d er B ookeror B l akel y b e c a u s e th e d e c is io n s d o n o t a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly. P r i ce , 400 F. 3d at844; B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 6 8 (h o ld in g th a t B oo ker appl i es onl yt o pendi ng oron di r ect re v ie w a t th e tim e o f

th e d e c is io n ). In addit i on , w e no t e t hat M r. F al l s bri efl yal l ud es t o a C on front at i on C l ause c l a i m i n h i s b r i e f. W e d o n o tc o n s i d e rth i s c l a i m fo rtw o r e a s o n s . P r i m a r i l y, s in c e M r. F a lls d id n o t r a is e th e is s u e b e lo w , it is n o t p ro p e rl yb e fo re u s . See C um m i ngs v. Nor t on , 393 F. 3d 1186, 1190 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng the gene r al-5-

rul e thati s s ues notr ai s ed i n t he di s tr i ctcour tar e w ai ved) . Secondl y , t o the ext entt hatM r . Fal l s di s cus s es t he al l eged vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, he does notadequa t el ys t at e hi s gr ounds forr el i ef; r ather h is a rg u m e n t c o n s is ts o f a s in g le c o n c lu s o ry st a te m e n t. I I I . CO NC L US I ON A c c o rd in g ly , w e D E N Y M r. F a lls’ a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A , w e D E N Y h is m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris , an d w e D IS M IS S the m att er.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge