FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 50 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -2 11 60 -ASG, 1: 06 -cr- 20 08 1- ASG-1 RICAR DO MAURICI O BERNAL PALACIOS, Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ver su s UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 9, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ri card o M au ric io Bern al Pal aci os , a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di stric t

co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p ro se 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e. Rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we v acat e an d re m an d fo r ad di ti on al pro ceed in gs . Pal aci os an d h is co de fen da ntbro th er, J ua n P al aci os (“ Ju an ”), p le ad edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to l au nd er m on ey an d m on ey

lau nd eri ng , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(l ), (a)( 2) (A), (h ). Pal aci os fil eda se ct io n 2 25 5 m ot io n andrai se d th es e cl ai m s: (1) he di d n otkn owi ng ly, in te ll ig en tl y , or v ol un ta ril y pl eadgu il ty; (2 ) hi s l awy er fa il edto fil e a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw th e g ui lt y pl ea an d p le a ag reem en t; (3) hi s l awy er fa il edto fil e a m ot io n t o c om pe l the go ve rn m en t t o m ov e fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1; (4) hi s l awy er fai le d t o fi le a m ot io n fo r a d own wardde partu re b as edon co op erat io n, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 5 K2.0 ; (5 ) hi s l awy er fa il edto fil e a m ot io n t o e nf or ce the pl ea ag reem en t an d t o o bjec t t o t he go ve rn m en t’s b reac h o f th e p le a ag reem en t; (6) he was actua ll y

in no cen t i n t he li gh t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inUni te d S ta te s v. Sa nt os , 12 8 S .Ct. 2 02 0 (2 00 8) ; an d (7 ) hi s l awy er was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to fil e a d ire ctap pe al aft er b ei ng reque st edto do so . After f il in g arep ly brie f, Pal aci os fil eda se pa rat e p le ad in g i n s up po rt o f hi s C la im 6, ad op ti ng th e p orti on

2of

Ju an ’s sec ti on 22 55 rep ly brie f th atdi sc us se d t he San to s d eci si on . * The m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on (“ R&R ”), reco m m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d en y Pal aci os ’s m ot io n t o v acat e. Indo in g so , th e m ag is tra te ad dr es se d t he m eri ts of P al aci os ’s sev encla im s an d s ta te d t ha t, to th e ex te ntPal aci os ad op te d Jua n’s cl ai m s, tho se cla im s wer e d en ie d fo r th e reas on s s etforth in th e R&Ris su edinJu an ’s cas e. Pal aci os fil edti m el y ob jecti on s t o t he R&R, a ss ert in g t ha t h e was en ti tl edto rel ie f on eachof h is sev en cl ai m s. The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te ’s R&R a ndde ni edPal aci os ’s m ot io n t o v acat e, st at in g t ha t the co urt h adrev ie wedth e o bjec ti on s an d h ad co nduc te d “ anin de pe nd en t an d d e n ov o re vi ew of th e rec or d.” In i ts ord er, ho wev er, the co urt s ta te d t ha t Pa la ci os an d J ua n h ad“ fil edsi m il ar m ot io ns to va cat e . . . rais in g the same clai m s.” Th e co urt the n i de nt ifi edbo th “ m ov an ts ’” cl ai m s as fol lo ws: “ (1 ) th ey are ac tu al ly inn oc en t o f al l the ch arg es ; (2 ) th ei r se nt en ces sh ou ldbe va cat edba se d o n [S an to s]; (3 ) th ey were d en ie d e ffec ti ve aid

J uan filed a

section 2255 motion to vacateraisingthese five claims: (1) he was a ctually * innocent base d on Santos; (2) his sentence was e rrone ously enhanc ed in the light of Santos; (3) his lawyer w as ineff

ective f or fa iling to ra ise Claims 1 and 2; (4) his guilty plea wa s not enter ed knowing ly , intelligently , or voluntarily ; and (5) his lawyer w as ineff ective f or fa iling to file an a ppeal a nd for f ailing to infor

m him that the Supreme Court’s grant of c ertiora ri in Santos prese nted a potential ground for appea l. 3with re sp ectt[o ] th e fi rs t two cl ai m s; (4) th ei r gu il ty ple as were n otkn owi ng ly and

vo lu nt ari ly ent ered ; an d (5 ) th ey were d en ie d e ffec ti ve aidof c ou ns el be cau se th ei r at to rn ey fai le d t o fi le ap pe al s t o t he ir s en te nc es de sp it e . . . the ir wi sh es to do so .” The co urt d is cu ss edeach of t he se fiv e cl ai m s an d d en ie d P al aci os ’s m ot io n t o va cat e. W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e fo ll owi ng is su e: “ Whe th er th e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o c on du cta de no vo rev ie w of Pa la ci os ’s ob jecti on s t o t he m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , as re qu ire d b y Fed .R.Ci v.P . 72 (b )? ” Pu rs uantto Ru le 72 (b ), “ [t]he di st ric t ju dg e m us t d et erm in e d e n ov o a ny pa rt o f th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s di sp os it io n tha t h as be enpro pe rly ob jecte d t o.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 72 (b )(3 ); s ee al so 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (b )(1 ) (p ro vi di ng th at“ [a] judg e o f th e co urt s ha ll m ak e a d e n ov o d et erm in at io n o f th os e p orti on s o f th e [m ag is tra te ’s] rep ort o r sp eci fie d p ro po se d fi nd in gs or r eco m m en da ti on s t o wh ic h ob jecti onis m ad e.”). We revi ew de no vo th e le ga l i ss ue of wh ethe r th e d is tri ct co urt co nduc te d apro pe r rev ie w of t he reco rdbe fo re ad op ti ng a m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d re co m

m en da ti on . Cf. Ly

nn v. Un it edSta te s, 3 65 F.3d12 25 , 12 32 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (p ro vi di ng th atwe rev ie w leg al is su es insec ti on22 55 pro ceed in gs de no vo ). 4Bas edon th is reco rd , we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co nduc te d

th e requi redde no vo rev ie w of Pa la ci os ’s ob jecti on s t o t he R&R. Th e co urt in co rrec tl y

ch arac te riz edPal aci os ’s cla im s as be in g “ th e sa m e” as Ju an ’s and , in enum erat in g t he cla im s, l is te d o nl y th e cl ai m s ra is edinJu an ’s sec ti on22 55 m ot io n to va cat e. Lik ewis e, th e co urt’s an al y si s was li m it edto th os e cl ai m s ra is edin Ju an ’s m ot io n. So m e o f Pal aci os ’s cla im s o ve rlapp edwith J ua n’s. Bu t Pa la ci os ’s m ot io n t o v acat e in cl ud edcla im s t ha t wer e u ni qu e to Pal aci os ’s cas e, in cl ud in g -- atth e v ery le as t -- th os e co nt en ti on s s etforth inCla im s 2 , 3, 4 , and5. Bec au se th e di st ric t co urt fa il edto ad dr es s the se arg um en ts , we vac at e an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt t o c on du cta de no vo rev ie w of a ll of P al aci os ’s ob jecti on s. VACATED AN D REMANDED.

5