# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 37 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nico le W al ke r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 15 Fil ed : J an ua ry

14 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Nico le W al ke r pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g t o man u fact ur e an d di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ). The di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ced W al ke r to a m an da to ry m in im um t e n ye ars im

pr is on m en t. W e 1

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1
Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.affi rm ed W al ke r’s se nt en ce on di rect ap pe al

. See Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d

41 6, 41 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). W al ke r no w ap p e a l s t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of he r

m ot io n to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t he r se nt en ce pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. 2
Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Tho m as v. Uni te d St at es , 73 7 F.3 d 12 02

, 12 06 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ), we co nc lu de th e d is tri ct co ur t p ro pe rly den ie d Walk er re li ef.

I. BACKGRO UND

On Aug us t 18

, 20 10

, a gr an d jury ch arg ed W al ke r wit h on e co un t of co ns pi rin g

to m an uf act ur e an d di st rib ut e at le as t 50 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e an d 50 0

g r am s of a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e. Thro ug h co un se l,

W al ke r en te red in to ex te ns iv e pl ea ne go ti at io ns wit h th e go ve rn m en t. In an at te m pt

to red uc e th e st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um W al ke r face d fro m te n y ears to fiv e y ears

an d to lo wer he r se nt en ci ng ran ge un de r th e U n i te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s)

, W al ke r an d he r co un se l rep eat ed ly so ug ht to lo wer th e dr ug

qu an ti ty to wh ic h Walk er wo ul d p le ad gu il ty.

The go ve rn m en t d id no t rel en t en ti rel y bu t of fere d to le t W al ke r pl ead gu il ty

to a le ss er-i nc lu de d of

fen se un de r § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1) (B) an d co nt es t th e dr ug qu an ti ty at

se nt en ci ng

. Af

t e r d et ai le d di sc us si on s wit h he r co un se l ab ou t th e ad va nt ag es an d

d i s a d v an ta ge s of th e go ve rn m en t’s pl ea of fer, W al ke r pl ed gu il ty on Feb ru ary 24

, 20 11

, to co ns pi rin g to m an uf act ur e an d di st rib ut e at le as t fiv e gr am s o f act ua l

m et ha m ph et am in e or 50 gr am s of a m ix tu r e o r su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng

m et ha m ph et am in e.

In si gn in g th e writ te n pl ea ag reem en t, W al ke r av erre d sh e un de rs to od sh e was pl ead in g g ui lt y to a ch arg e th at carr ie d “ a m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of at le as t
fiv e ye a r s i n p r i so n an d a m ax im um se nt en ce of up to fo rty y ears in pr is on .” The

ag reem en t fu rth er ad vi se d Walk er

W e h av e ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 2

-2

-th e go ve rn m en t m ay arg ue at se nt en ci ng th at [Walk er] is res po ns ib le fo r

at le as t 50 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e or 50 0 gr am s of a m ix tu re

an d su bs t a n c e co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e an d, if th e di st ric t co ur t fin ds by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at [Walk er] is res po ns ib le fo r th is la rg er am ou nt
, th e co ur t wil l im po se a te n- y ear m an da to ry m in im um

se nt en ce.

W al ke r un de rs to od th at reg ard le ss of whi ch m an da to ry m in im um ap pl ie d, th e di st ric t

c o u rt co ul d “ no t im

po se a se nt en ce le ss th an th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en c e

un le ss ” it fo un d W al ke r qu al ifi ed fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f). 3

Last ly, W al ke r ag reed no on e ha d pr om is ed sh e wou ld “ be el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce of

le ss th an th e m an da to ry

m in im um .”

W it h res pe ct to th e vo lu nt ari ne ss of he r pl ea, W al ke r st at ed s he “ ha d a fu ll

op po rtu ni ty t o di sc us s” he r cas e an d th e co ns eq ue nc es of he r pl ea wit h he r co un se l

an d was sa ti sf

ie d wit h he r co un se l’s r ep res en ta ti on

. W al ke r st at ed sh e ha d “ no

co m pl ai nt ab ou t th e ti m e an d at te nt io n” he r co un se l “ de vo te d to [h er] c a s e n o r t h e ad vi ce” h e g av e.

At W al ke r’s ch an ge -o f-p l e a h e a r in g on Feb ru ary 24

, 20 11

, th e m ag is tra te jud ge rei te rat ed th e ke y te rm s in W al ke r’s pl ea agre em en t, inc lu di ng W al ke r co ul d

4

face a te n- y ear m an da to ry m in im um

. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (b ), (c) (ch an ge of pl ea).

W al ke r r e s t a te d sh e was sa ti sf ie d wit h he r co un se l an d av erre d no on e pr om is ed or

pr ed ic te d th e ex act se nt en ce sh e wou ld rece iv e. On th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on , th e d is tri ct co ur t ac cep te d Walk er’s g ui lt y pl ea.

In cas es in vo lv in g a vi ol at io n of §§ 84 1 an d 84 6, 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f) al lo ws 3

a se nt en ci ng co ur t to im po se a se nt en ce be lo w an ot he rwis e a pp li cab le st at ut or y

m in im um if c ert ai n s ta tu to ry

co nd it io ns are m et . See i d. § 35 53 (f)(1 )-(5 ).

The Hon or ab le Tho m as J. Sh ie ld s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 4
So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-3

-Beg in ni ng Sep te m be r 20

, 20 11

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nd uc te d a se nt en ci ng he ari ng at whi ch th e dr

ug qu an ti ty at tri bu te d to W al ke r was sh arp ly co nt es te d. The

go ve rn m en t as se rte d Wa l ke r was res po ns ib le fo r 14 2.5 gr am s of act ua l

m et ha m ph et am in e, 18 2 gr am s of a pu rer fo rm of m et ha m ph et am in e kn own as “ ic e,”

an d 72 4 gr am s of a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e. W al ke r, on th e ot he r ha nd

, u r g e d th e di st ric t co ur t to “ fin d a dr ug qu an ti ty i n a ran ge of 10 0 to
20 0 gr am s m ix tu re wi th 5 g ram s o f su ch qu an ti ty b ei ng pu re/ ic e.” Afte r rev ie win g

“ al l of th e ev id en ce” in W al ke r’s cas e, th e di st ric t cou rt con cl ud ed a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce su pp or te d at tri bu ti ng th e gr eat er dr ug qu an ti ty to W al ke r de sp it e

“ so m e res erv at io n a bo ut th e p reci si on of t ha t am ou nt .”

Wit h res pe ct to W al ke r’s req ue st fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d W al ke r di d n ot qu al ify beca us e sh e fai le d to de m on st rat e sh e “ tru th fu ll y

pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n reg ard in g he r of fen se , at le as t in co m

pl et e de ta il ,” as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(5 ). B a s e d on it s dr ug -q ua nt it y fin di ng an d W al ke r’s

in el ig ib il it y fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced W al ke r to th e st at ut or y

m an da to ry m in im

um te n y ears in pr is on

. See 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) (impos in g a

m an da to ry m in im

um of te n y ears fo r a vi ol at io n of § 84 1( a)(1 ) in vo lv in g “ 50 gr am s

or m or e of m et ha m

ph et am in e

. . . or 50 0 gr a ms o r m or e of a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e

co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e”).

W al ke r ap pe al ed he r se nt en ce, ch al le ng in g th e to ta l dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu te d to
he r an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on sh e ha d di st rib ut ed “ ic e.” W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d at
41 8 n.2

, 42 0, 42 2- 25

. W e aff i r m ed

. See id

. at 41 8, 42 6. On Octo be r 31

, 20 12

, W a l k e r p e t i ti on ed th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es fo r a writ of cert io rari

, al le gi ng th e d is tri ct co ur t fa il ed to m ak e su ffi ci en t fact fin di ng s to su pp or t i ts dru gqu an ti ty de te rm in at io n an d im pr op erl y in te rp ret ed an d ap p l i e d th e Gui de li ne s de fin it io n of “ ic e.” The Su pr em e Co ur t de ni ed cert io rari on Decem be r 10

, 20 12

. See

W al ke r v. Un it ed Sta te s, _

__ U.S. __

_, 1 33 S. Ct. 8 01 (20 12 ).

-4

-On Decem be r 26

, 20 12

, W al ke r fil ed a pr o se § 22 55 m ot io n, pr im ari ly al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t ap po in te d co un se l to rep res en t

W al ke r, an d he r co un se l th en fil ed two am en de d m ot io ns , rai si ng ad di ti on al gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed r e l ie f wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. W al ke r ti m el y ap pe al s, a r g ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to (1 ) ret ro act iv el y ap pl y All ey ne v. Uni te d St at es , 57 0 U.S.

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. 21 51 (2 01 3)

, to he r cas e; (2 ) fin d

he r co un se l was co ns ti tu ti on al ly in effe ct iv e d u rin g he r pl ea an d on ap pe al ; an d (3 ) co nd uc t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Man da to ry Mini m um Sent ence
At th e ti m e of W al ke r ’s se nt en ci ng in 20 11

, co nt ro ll in g Su pr em e Co ur t

pr eced en t he ld th at th e Co ns ti tu ti on pe rm it te d a jud ge to fin d, by a pr ep on de ran ce of

th e ev id en ce, an y fact th at in crea se d th e m an da to ry mi ni m um se nt en ce fo r a cri m e.
See Harri s v. Uni te d St at es , 53 6 U.S. 54 5, 56 8- 69 (2 00 2) ; acco r d U ni te d St at es v.
W eb b, 54 5 F.3 d 67 3, 67 7 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 08 ). On Ju ne 13

, 20 13

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

ov erru le d Harri s in A l l ey ne , ho ld in g th at an y fact th at in crea se s th e m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce m

us t be su bm it te d to a jury an d fo un d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.
See All ey ne , 57 0 U.S. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 21 55

. Alt ho ug h W al ke r’s di rect ap pe al

was fin al be fo re th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci de d All ey ne , Wal ke r as se rts sh e is en ti tl ed

to re-s en te nc in g un de r All ey n e be cau se , i n he r vi ew, (1 ) “ sh e su ffer ed a pl ai n erro r whe n th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce st an da rd to in crea se he r m an da to ry m in im

um ”; (2 ) “ All ey ne sh ou ld ap pl y ret ro act iv el y ”; an d (3 ) sh e “ was

en ti tl ed to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of cert io rari co un se l bo th u n d e r fed eral st at ut e an d

un de r th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n.” W al ke r’s arg um en ts are u na va il in g.

1. Pla in Erro r
W al ke r fir st cl ai m s sh e “ is en ti tl ed to rel ie f be cau se it was pl ai n erro r fo r th e

se nt en ci ng co ur t to in crea se he r m an da to ry m in im um ba se d on a fact fo un d by [t he

di st ric t co ur t by] th e pr ep on de ra n c e o f th e ev id en ce”— th e se nt en ci ng pr oc ed ur e

-5

-au th or iz ed by H arri s bu t su bs eq ue nt ly ov erru le d in All ey ne

. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P.

52 (b ) (“ A pl ai n erro r th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s m ay be co ns id ere d ev en th ou gh

it was no t br ou gh t to th e co ur t’s at te nt io n.” ). In cl ai m in g pl ai n erro r, W al ke r fai ls to

reco gn iz e “ ‘the im

po rta nt di st in ct io n be twee n di rect rev ie w an d co ll at eral rev ie w.’ ” Teag ue v. Lan e, 48 9 U.S. 28 8, 30 7 (1 98 9) (p l u r al it y op in io n) (q uo ti ng Yate s v. Aik en , 48 4 U.S. 21 1, 21 5 (1 98 8) ). “ Bec au se it was in te nd ed fo r us e on di rect ap pe al

,

. . . th e ‘pla in erro r’ st an da rd is ou t of pl ace whe n a pr is on er la un ch es a co ll at eral

at ta ck ag ai ns t a cri m in al co nv ic ti on aft er s oc ie ty’ s l eg it im at e in te res t i n th e fin al it y

o f t h e jud gm en t ha s be en pe rfec te d

. . . by th e affi rm an ce of th e co nv i c t i o n o n

ap pe al .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Frad y , 45 6 U.S. 1 52 , 16 4 (1 98 2)

.

2. Retro ac tiv ity of Al le yn e
W al ke r’s co ll at eral at ta ck o n he r se nt en ce— whi ch be cam e fin al on di rect

rev ie w be fo re th e de ci si on in All ey ne

— i s go ve rn ed by Teag ue

. See W ho rto n v.
Bo ck ti ng , 54 9 U.S. 40 6, 41 6 (2 00 7) (ex pl ai ni ng Teag ue “ la id ou t th e fram ewo rk to ”

us e in de ci di ng if a ru le an no un ced in a Su pr em e Co ur t op in io n ap pl ie s “ ret ro act iv el y

to jud gm en ts in cri m in al cas e s t h a t a r e al read y fin al on di rect rev ie w”); Bec ht v. Uni te d St at es , 40 3 F.3 d 54 1, 54 5 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (rec og ni zi ng we ge ne ral ly m us t
de te rm in e whe th er a pe ti ti on er’s § 22 55 “ m ot io n is ba rred by th e ru le on ret ro act iv it y

an no un ced in Teag ue ”). Und er Teag ue , Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s th at crea te “ ne w

co ns ti tu ti on al ru le s of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e” ge ne ral ly do n o t a p pl y “ to th os e cas es whi ch ha ve be co m e fin al be fo re th e ne w ru le s are an no un ced .” Teag ue , 48 9 U.S. at
31 0. “ Teag ue st at ed two ex cep ti on s: ‘[W ]aters he d ru le s of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e’ an d

ru le s pl aci ng ‘con du ct be y on d th e po wer of th e [g ov ern m en t] to pr os cri be .’ ” Ch ai de z

v. Uni te d St at es , 56 8 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. 11 03

, 11 07 n.3 (2 01 3) (al te rat io ns in

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Teag ue , 48 9 U.S. at 31 1)

.

W al ke r co nte nd s “ All ey ne sh ou ld be ap pl ie d ret ro act iv el y to [h er] cas e be cau se it was a wate rs he d ex cep ti on .” Rel y in g on pr e-Tea gu e cas es li ke Han ke rs on v. Nor th

Caro li na , 43 2 U.S. 23 3, 24 3 (1 97 7)

, Iv an V. v. Ci ty of New Yor k, 40 7 U.S. 20 3, 20 5

-6

-(1 97 2) (p er cu ria m ), an d In re W in sh ip

, 39 7 U.S. 35 8, 36 7- 68 (1 97 0)

, W al ke r as se rts

“ [t]he reas on ab le do ub t ru le of All ey ne is a ‘w at ers he d ru le ’ be cau se it s ve ry po in t is

to pr ot ect th e in no cen t an d ba la nc e th e co nt es t be tw e e n g o v e rn m en t an d accu se d.”

W e d is ag ree.

The Su pr em e Co ur t “ gi ve [s ] ret ro act iv e effe ct to on ly a sm al l se t of ‘w at ers he d

ru le s of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e im pl ic at in g th e fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s an d accu racy of th e cri m in al pr o c e e d in g.’” Sch rir o v. Su m m erl in

, 54 2 U.S. 34 8, 35 2 (2 00 4) (q uo ti ng Saff le v. Park s, 49 4 U.S. 48 4, 49 5 (1 99 0) ). “ [T]o qu al ify as wate rs he d, a

. . . ru le

m us t be ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t ‘an im pe rm is si bl y la rg e ris k’ of an in accu rat e” ou tc om e

an d “ m us t ‘alte r ou r un de rs ta nd in g of th e be dr oc k pr oc ed ur al el em en t s es se nt ia l to
th e fai rn es s of a pr oc eed in g.’” W ho rto n, 54 9 U.S. at 41 8 (q uo ti ng Sch rir o, 54 2 U.S.

at 35 2)

. Exp la in in g th e ex cep ti on is “ ex tre m el y na rro w” an d ob se rv in g “ it is un li ke ly

th at an y su ch rul es ha ve y et to em erg e,” th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s, “ in th e y ears si nc e Teag ue , . . . reject ed ev ery cl ai m th at a ne w ru le sa ti sf ie d t h e r e q u i r em en ts fo r

wate rs he d st at us .” Id . a t 41 7- 18 (q uo ti ng Sch rir o, 5 42 U.S. at 3 52 ) (i nt ern al m ark s

om it te d)

.

To da te
, ne it he r th e Su pr em e Co ur t no r th is co ur t ha s “ he ld th at All ey ne ap pl ie s

ret ro act iv el y ” on co ll at eral rev ie w. Tho m ps on v. R o y, 7 93 F.3 d 84 3, 84 6 (8 th Ci r.
20 15 ); acco rd Si m

ps on v. Uni te d St at es , 72 1 F.3 d 87 5, 87 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 13 ). And

, as
W al ke r co nc ed es , ev ery ci rcu it co ur t to co ns id er th is is su e ha s co nc lu de d All ey ne do es no t app ly ret ro act iv el y

. See, e.g ., But te rwo rth v. Un it ed Sta te s, 7 75 F.3d 45 9,

46 4- 65 (1s t Ci r. 20 15 ); Un it ed Sta te s v . Olv era, 77 5 F.3d 72 6, 73 0 & n.1 2 (5t h Cir.

20 15 ) (l is ti ng cas es fro m eig ht cir cu it s)

.

-7

-Alt ho ug h th e ci rcu m st an ces an d an al y si s ha ve va rie d, th e ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve

ag reed th at ev en if All ey ne an no un ced a ne w ru le

, th e de ci s i o n is no t th e rare 5

ex cep ti on th at an no un ced a wate rs he d ru le of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e th at “ ‘alte r[ed ] ou r

un de rs t a n d in g of th e be dr oc k pr oc ed ur al el em en ts ’ of th e ad jud ic at or y pr oc es s.”
Uni te d St at es v. W in ke lm an , 74 6 F.3 d 13 4, 13 6 (3 d Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Teag ue , 48 9

U.S. at 31 1) ; acco rd Hug he s v. Uni te d St at es , 77 0 F.3 d 81 4, 81 8- 19 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

In reac hi ng th at co nc lu si on , th e ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve no te d Al le y ne was a n e xt en si on of App ren di v. New Je rs ey , 5 30 U.S. 4 66 , 49 0 (2 00 0) , in whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t
he ld “ [o ]the r th an th e fact of a pr io r co nv ic ti on , an y fact th at in crea se s th e pe na lt y fo r

a cri m e be y on d th e pr es cri be d st at ut or y m ax im um mu st be su bm it te d to a jury, an d

pr ov ed be y on d a re a s o n a b le do ub t.” See, e.g ., Je an ty v. W ard en , FCI- Mi am i, 75 7

F.3 d 1 28 3, 1 28 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 4) (pe r cu ria m ).

“ [T]he Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t m ad e App ren di ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral

rev ie w,” Abd ul la h v. Uni te d St at es , 24 0 F.3 d 68 3, 68 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), an d ha s

“ de ci de d th at ot he r ru le s ba se d on App ren di do no t app ly ret ro act iv el y on co ll at eral

rev ie w,” Si m

ps on , 72 1 F.3 d at 87 6 (ci ti ng Sch rir o, 54 2 U.S. at 34 9, 35 8, in whi ch th e
Su pr em e Co ur t de te rm in ed th e ex te ns io n of App ren di to jud ic ia l fact fin di ng in Ri ng

v. Ariz on a, 53 6 U.S. 58 4 (2 00 2)

, di d no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y ). The ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve

rep eat ed ly fo ll owe d su it

. See, e.g ., Olv era, 77 5 F.3 d at 73 1 & n.1 6; In re And ers on , 39 6 F.3 d 13 36

, 13 39 -4 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). In co nc l u d i n g A ll ey ne do es no t ap pl y

ret ro act iv el y , th e ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve reas on ed

, “ If App ren di

. . . do es no t ap pl y

re t r o a c t i ve ly, th en a cas e ex te nd in g App ren di sh ou ld no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y .” Hug he s, 7 70 F.3d at 8 18

.

So m e ci rc ui t co ur ts ha ve de ci de d All ey ne an no un ced a new co nst itu tio na l ru le

, 5

se e, e.g ., Si m

ps on , 72 1 F.3 d at 87 6, w h i l e o t he rs ha ve de cl in ed to an swe r th at
qu es ti on , see , e.g., In re Ma zzi o, 7 56 F.3d 48 7, 4 89 n.2 (6t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

-8

-Tha t reas on in g is pe rs ua si ve an d co ns is te nt wit h ou r pr eced en t. See Bu rto n v.

F a b i an , 61 2 F.3 d 10 03

, 10 10 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ [T]he Eig ht h Ci rcu it ha s

co ns is te nt ly he ld th at App ren di an d it s pr og en y are no t ru le s of wate rs he d m ag ni tu de

an d ha s de cl in ed to ap pl y th os e cas es ret ro act iv el y .”). Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es

v. Mo ss , 25 2 F.3 d 9 9 3

, 9 9 7 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 01 ), we he ld “ th at App ren di [wa]s no t of

wate rs he d m ag ni tu de an d th at Teag ue ba rs pe ti ti on ers fro m rai si ng App ren di cl ai m s

on co ll at eral rev ie w.” W e ex pl ai ne d “ we d [ i d ] no t be li ev e App ren di ’s ru le

rech arac te riz in g cert ai n fact s as of fen se el em en ts th at were pr ev io us ly th ou gh t to be

se nt en ci ng fact or s res id e[d ] an y whe re ne ar th at cen tra l co re of fu nd am en ta l ru le s th at

are a bs ol ut el y

ne ces sa ry

to in su re a fa ir t ria l.” Id . at 9 98

.

O u r an al y si s in Mo ss ap pl ie s wit h fu ll fo rce he re. W al ke r’s at te m p t t o di st in gu is h App ren di an d All ey ne ba se d on th e m an da t o r y n at ur e of a st at ut or y

m in im um an d th e freq ue nc y wit h whi ch su ch m in im um s m ig ht ap pl y fai ls to co nv in ce

us th e ex te ns io n of App r e n d i i n All ey ne an no un ced th e fir st wate rs he d ru le fo un d

un de r Teag ue

. See W ho rto n, 54 9 U.S. at 41 8; Mo ss , 25 2 F.3 d at 99 8 n.5

. W e no w 6 joi n th os e ci rcu it co ur ts ho ld in g th at ev en if All ey ne an no un ced a ne w co ns ti tu ti on al

ru le

, t h at ru le do es no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y on co ll at eral rev ie w. See, e.g ., Bu tt erwo rth

, 77 5 F.3 d at 46 5 (rev ie win g an al og ou s pr eced en t an d reac hi ng “ th e sa m e

co nc lu si on ab ou t re tro act iv it y for All ey ne as . . . fo r App ren di ”).

W al ke r al so tri es to di st in gu is h Mo ss on th e gr ou nd s th at “ W al ke r’s cert io rari 6

pe ti ti on was pe nd in g on di rect ap pe al aft er th e Su pr em e Co ur t acce pt ed All ey ne fo r

rev ie w.” The ti m in g in W al ke r’s cas e un de rs ta nd ab ly m ak es th e no n- ret ro act iv it y of All ey ne m or e fru st rat in g fo r he r , b u t i t d oe s no t ch an ge th e fact W al ke r’s se nt en ce

was fin al on di rect rev ie w by th e rel ev an t ti m e—t he da te th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci de d All ey ne

. See Alle y ne , 57 0 U.S. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 21 55 ; W al ke r,

__ _U.S. at ___

, 13 3 S . Ct. at 80 1.

-9

-3. In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce of Cou ns el - Peti tio n fo r Wri t of Certi or ar i W al ke r ne xt arg ue s he r “ co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se th e All ey ne is su es in he r pe ti ti on fo r cert io rari .” “ W e rev ie w de no vo ‘pos t co nv ic ti on in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce cl ai m s br ou gh t un de r § 22 55 ’ an d th e ‘und erl y in g fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear

e r ro r.’” Cal ki ns v. Uni te d St at es , 79 5 F.3 d 89 6, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) ( q u o t i n g Tin ajero -Ort iz v. Un it ed Sta te s, 6 35 F.3d 11 00 , 11 03 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

Sect io n 22 55 (a) au th or iz es a fed eral pr is on er to m ov e fo r rel e a s e “ up on th e

gr ou nd th at [h er] se nt en ce was im po se d in vi ol at io n of th e Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws of th e Uni te d St at es .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (a). W al ke r as se rts bo th co ns ti tu ti on al an d st at ut or y in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s. Bo th fai l.

a. Con st itu tio na l Cl ai m
W al ke r as se rts sh e “ was co ns ti tu ti on al ly en ti tl ed to effe ct iv e as si s t a n c e of

c o un se l du rin g th e writ of cert io rari ph as e of he r ap pe al .” Dub io us ly ur gi n g u s t o

“ de cl in e to fo ll ow Ro ss [v

. Mo ffi tt
, 41 7 U.S. 60 0, 61 7 (1 97 4) ], th e cas e in whi ch th e
Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th e st at es are no t ob li ga te d to pr ov id e co un se l fo r Uni te d St at es
Su pr em e Co ur t cert io rari pe ti ti on ers ,” W al ke r arg ue s we “ sh ou ld fin d th e Fi fth

, Si xt h,

an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts gu aran te e W al ke r th e rig ht to effe ct iv e as si s t a n c e of

co un se l wh en pe ti ti on in g fo r a wri t o f cert io rari .”

W al ke r’s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m is co nt rary to Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t, se e, e.g , Pen ns y lv an ia v. Fi nl ey , 48 1 U.S. 55 1, 55 5 (1 98 7) (“ Our cas es es ta bl is h th at th e rig ht

to ap po in te d co un se l ex te nd s to th e f i r s t a p p e a l of rig ht

, an d no fu rth er. Thu s, we ha ve reject ed su gg es ti on s th at we es ta bl is h a rig ht to co un se l on di sc ret io na ry

ap pe al s.”)

, an d ou r de ci si on in St eel e v. Uni te d St at es , 51 8 F. 3 d 9 8 6, 98 9 (8 th Ci r.
20 08 ), in whi ch we he ld a § 22 55 pe ti ti on er “ ha d no c o ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co un se l

fo r th e fil in g of a cert io rari pe ti ti on ” wit h th e Su pr em e Co ur t. In St eel e, we ex pl ai ne d

th at ab se nt a co ns ti tu ti on a l r i gh t to co un se l, a pe ti ti on er ha d no co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

-1 0-to effe ct iv e as si st an ce; th eref or e, he r “ § 22 55 cl ai m fo r in effe c t i v e as si st an ce of

co un se l [co ul d ]not su ccee d.” St eel e, 51 8 F.3 d at 98 8; acco rd W ai nwr ig ht v. Torn a,
45 5 U.S. 58 6, 58 7- 88 (1 98 2) (p er cu ria m ) (ex pl ai ni ng a d efen da nt who “ ha d no

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co un se l

. . . co ul d no t be de pr iv ed of th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l” ).

In St eel e, we al so reject e d t h e pe ti ti on er’s co nt en ti on “ th at Fed eral Ru le of

Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 44 (a) an d ou r ci rcu it pl an to im pl em en t th e Cri m in al Ju st ic e Act

crea te [d ] a rig ht to ha ve effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l to fil e a pe ti ti on fo r cert io rari

an d th at th e br each of th at rig ht de pr iv ed he r of du e pr oc es s.” St eel e, 51 8 F.3 d at
98 8. W e co nc lu de d “ [t]he al le ge d br each of th e pr ov is io ns of ou r pl an an d Ru le 44 (a)

di d no t de pr iv e [th e pe ti ti on er] of du e pr oc es s of la w an d di d no t gi ve ris e to a cl ai m fo r in effe ct iv e re p r e s e n t at io n of co un se l.” Id

. In li gh t of St eel e, th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y reject ed W al ke r’s co ns ti tu ti on al cla im

.

b. Sta tuto ry Cla im

W al ke r al so as se rts he r “ co nv ic ti on was ob t a i n e d in vi ol at io n of he r rig ht to
effe ct i v e a ss is ta nc e of ap pe ll at e co un se l, as gu aran te ed by

. . . Fed eral Ru le of

Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 44 (a); 18 U.S.C. § 30 06 A; Eig ht h Ci rcu it Pl an to Im pl em en t th e 7 8

Cr i mi n a l Ju st ic e Act of 19 64

. . . ; an d Eig ht [s ic ] Ci rcu it cas el aw.” In pa rti cu la r,
W al ke r rel ie s on W il so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 4 F.2 d 89 3, 89 4- 95 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ) (p er

cu ria m ), in whi ch th is co ur t s ta te d “ [f]ail ur e to ad vi se a de fen da nt of hi s rig ht to

pe ti ti on for cert io rari in th e Su pr em e Co ur t v io la te s h is rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce

Ru le 44 (a) pr ov id es , “ A de fen da nt who is un ab le to ob ta in co un se l is en ti tl ed 7

to ha ve co un se l ap po in te d to rep res en t th e de fen da nt at ev ery st ag e of th e pr oc eed in g fro m in it ia l ap pe aran ce t hr ou gh ap pe al .”

Sect io n 30 06 A(c) si m il arl y p r o vi de s, “ A pe rs on fo r who m co un se l is 8

ap po in te d sh al l be rep res en te d at ev ery st ag e of th e pr oc eed in gs fro m h i s in it ia l

ap pe aran ce be fo re th e Uni te d St at es m ag is tr a t e ju dg e or th e co ur t th ro ug h ap pe al

, in cl ud in g a nc il la ry

m at te rs ap pr op ria te to th e p ro ceed in gs .”

-1 1-o f c o un se l as gu aran te ed by Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 44 (a) an d th e Cri m in al Ju st ic e Act o f

19 64

, 1 8 U

. S

. C

. s 30 06 A

. . . an d vi ol at es Sect io n V of th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it Pl an to

Im pl em en t t he Cri m in al Ju st ic e Act of 1 96 4.”

W al ke r’s or ig in al

, am en de d, an d se co nd am en de d § 22 55 m ot io ns on ly rai se d

co ns ti tu ti on al in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s. On ap pe al

, W al ke r co nc ed es sh e di d no t
cl ai m a st at ut or y rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l or ev en m en ti on Ru le 44 (a),

18 U.S.C. § 30 06 A, or th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it pl an un ti l “ he r res po ns e to th e go ve rn m en t’s

rep ly brie f” o n h er m ot io n.

In as ki ng th e di st ri c t c o u r t to reco ns id er it s de ni al of he r § 22 55 m ot io n,
W al ke r as se rte d t he di st ric t co ur t “ fai le d to rul e whe th er Walk er was en ti tl ed to th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l un de r 18 U

. S

. C

. § 30 06 A(a), (b ), (c), an d (d )(7 ),

Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 44 (a), an d th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it pl an .” Yet W al ke r

ag ai n es se nt ia l l y f

ram ed he r in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m in co ns ti tu ti on al te rm s.
W al ke r pr op os ed , “ W it h t h e s e l aws an d ru le s in pl ace to se cu re a de fen da nt ’s r ig ht

to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l on ap pe al as gu ar an te ed by th e Si xt h Amend

men t , th es e r u l e s i n co nj un ct io n wi th th e Si xt h Amend

men t req ui re co un se l to pe rfo rm effe ct iv el y on ce th e as si st an ce is un de rta k e n

. ” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. Rel y in g on ou r

an al y si s in St eel e di sc us se d ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d W al ke r fai le d “ to
ad va nc e a b as is for sec ti on 22 55 rel ie f.”

O n ap pe al

, W al ke r as se rts fo r th e fir st ti m e th at we can rev ers e he r s e n t e n c e ba se d so le ly on th e ci te d st at ut e an d ru le s ev en in th e ab se nc e of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

to co un se l to fil e a cert io rari pe ti ti on

. As W al ke r se es it

, sh e “ was st at ut or il y en ti tl ed

to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l du rin g th e writ of cert io r a r i p ha se of he r ap pe al ”

on ce h e r c o u n se l to ok he r cas e an d un de rto ok to fil e a cert io rari pe ti ti on on he r be ha lf.

-1 2-Bu t W al ke r ack n o w l e d g e s no st at ut e or ot he r le ga l au th or it y req ui red he r

co u n s e l t o f

i l e a pe ti ti on fo r a writ of cert io rari

. See St eel e, 51 8 F.3 d at 98 8. And

W al ke r ha s fai le d to art ic ul at e an y vi ol at io n of a st at ut e or ru le in he r cas e th at wou ld

pr ov id e gr ou nd s fo r se nt en ci ng rel ie f un de r § 22 55

. A b s en t su ch a vi ol at io n,
W al ke r’s st at ut or y

cla im , eve n i f pr es erv ed , is be y on d t he sco pe of § 22 55 (a).

Eve n if we were t o a ss um e, as W al ke r no w pro po se s, t ha t s he ha d a st at ut or y rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l to fil e a cert io rari pe ti ti on de sp it e th e la ck of

a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, we co ul d no t acce pt he r cl ai m th at “ [b ]y fai li ng to rai se All ey ne , [h er co un se l’s] pe rfo rm an ce fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss ”

un de r St ric kl an d v

. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 6 68 (1 98 4)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t di d no t
is su e it s de ci si on in All ey ne un t i l mo r e t h an si x m on th s aft er it de ni ed W al ke r’s

pe ti ti on on Decem

be r 10

, 20 12

. See All eyn e , 5 7 0 U

. S

. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 21 55

. Fo r th e en ti re du rat io n of W al ke r’s cri m in al cas e an d di rect rev ie w, Harri s co nt ro ll ed

. Id

. As we ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld

, “ co un se l’s fail ur e to an ti ci pa te a ch an ge in th e la w do es no t es ta bl is h th at co un se l’s p e r f o r man ce was de fic ie nt .” And ers on v. Uni te d

St at es , 76 2 F.3d 78 7, 7 94 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) ; ac co rd Bro wn v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 11 F.3 d

87 5, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ [C]ou ns el ’s de ci si on no t to rai se an is su e un su pp or te d by

th en -ex is ti ng pre ced en t d [o es ] no t co ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce.”)

.

B. In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el - Plea Advi ce The Si xt h A men d ment gu aran te es th e rig ht to effe ct iv e co un se l du rin g pl ea

ne go ti at io ns an d th e en try of a gu il ty pl ea. See Mi ss ou ri v. Frye, 56 6 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 2 S. Ct

. 13 99

, 14 05 (2 01 2)

. “ W he re, as he re, a de fen da nt is rep res en te d by co un se l

du rin g th e pl ea pr oc es s a n d e nt ers h[ er] pl ea up on th e ad vi ce of co un se l, th e

vo lu nt ari ne ss of th e pl ea de pe nd s on whe th er co un se l’s ad vi ce ‘w as wit hi n th e ran ge of co m pe te nc e de m an de d of at to rn ey s in cri m in al cas es .’ ” Hil l v. Loc kh art
, 47 4 U.S.

52 , 56 (19 85 ) (q uo ti ng McM an n v . Ric ha rd so n, 3 97 U.S. 75 9, 7 71 (19 70 )).

-1 3-W al ke r arg ue s he r pl ea was in vo lu nt ar y b e cau se he r “ [t]ri al co un se l

in accu rat el y

ad vi se d [h er] as t o th e se nt en ci ng co ns eq ue nc es of he r pl ea, t he len gt h

of he r se nt en ce, an d he r el ig ib il it y fo r sa fet y va lv e.” Acco rd in g to W al ke r, em ai l

di sc us si on s be twee n W al k e r an d he r co un se l an d th e ne go ti at io ns be twee n he r

co un se l an d th e go ve rn m en t sh ow th at he r co un se l an d t h e go ve rn m en t (1 ) “ rep res en te d to W al ke r sh e wou ld fal l wit hi n a se nt en ci ng ran ge of 70 -8 7

m on th s,” (2 ) “ di sc ou nt ed th e 10 -y ear st at ut or y se nt en ce as so m et hi ng th at wou ld

ne ve r co m e in to pl ay ,” an d (3 ) un fai rly m is le d W al ke r “ to be li ev e he r se nt en ce wou ld

be m uc h li gh te r th an th e se nt en ce sh e u l t im at el y rece iv ed .” W al ke r’s cl ai m s are reb ut te d b y

th e rec or d.

As no te d by th e di st ric t co ur t, in he r writ te n pl ea ag reem en t, W al ke r ex pr es sl y

st a t e d sh e un de rs to od sh e face d a m an da to ry m in im um of at le as t fiv e y ears an d a

m ax im um se nt en ce of

up to for ty y ears un le ss th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d sh e qu al if ie d

fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f—wh ic h de pe nd ed on th e di st ric t co ur t fin di ng Wa l k e r w as

tru t h f u l i n he r pr of

fer de sp it e th e go ve rn m en t’s un wav eri ng op po si ti on

. W al ke r fu rth er un de rs t o o d t h e go ve rn m en t pl an ne d to arg ue at se nt en ci ng sh e was

res po ns ib le fo r a gr eat er qu an ti ty of dr ug s, an d if th e di st ric t co ur t so fo un d, W al ke r

wou ld face a te n- y ear man d a t o ry m in im um

. In th e writ te n pl ea an d he r pl ea

te st im on y , W al ke r st at ed no on e ha d pr ed ic te d or pr om is ed sh e wou ld rece iv e a

pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, m

uc h le ss on e th at was lo wer th an th e ap pl ic ab le m an da to ry

m in im um

.

Wa l k e r ’s em ai l ev id en ce is no t to th e co nt rary. W al ke r is ol at es a few wor d s sh e pr op os es pr om is ed he r a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, bu t W al ke r’s co un se l sp eci fic al ly

in fo rm ed W al ke r m or e th an on ce he di d no t kn ow wha t he r se nt en ce wou ld be

, pa rti cu la rly gi ve n wha t co un se l de sc rib ed as th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ a bu nd an ce of

di sc ret io n” re ga

rd ing the sa fet y va lv e. In ge ne ral

, W al ke r’s co un se l pr ov id ed de ta il ed

an d accu rat e in fo rm at io n and ad vi ce ab ou t th e te rm s an d co ns eq ue nc es of W al ke r’s pl ea.

-1 4-To th e ex te nt W al ke r’s co un se l m ad e an y erro r in es t i mat i n g t he se nt en ci ng

ran ge W al ke r m ig ht face u n de r th e Gui de li ne s, th e m is ta ke di d no t ren de r he r pl ea in vo lu nt ary un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e. See Uni te d St at es v. Qui ro ga , 55 4

F.3 d 11 50

, 11 55 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9)

. “ [I]nac cu rat e ad vi ce of co un se l ab ou t th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es or li ke ly pu ni sh m en t do es no t ren de r in vo lu nt ary a de fen da nt ’s

de ci si on t o p le ad gu il ty, so lo ng as th e de fen da nt is in fo rm ed of th e m ax im um

po ss ib le se nt en ce pe rm it te d by st at ut e an d th e co ur t’s ab il it y to se nt en ce wit hi n th at

ran ge .” Id . W al ke r’s pl ea was vo lu nt ary.

C. In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el - Sa fety Val ve
1. Sent enci ng
W al ke r ne xt arg ue s h er cou ns el was co ns ti tu ti on al ly in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to

pe rs u a d e t he di st ric t co ur t W al ke r qu al ifi ed fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f) an d U.S.S.G. § 5C 1.2

. In an effo rt to red uc e he r s e n t e nc e un de r § 35 53 (f)(1 )-(5 ), W al ke r at te m pt ed to m ak e a t r ut hf

ul pr of fer st at em en t to th e

go ve rn men t reg ard in g th e in fo rm at io n an d ev id en ce sh e ha d ab ou t th e co ns pi racy. See i d. § 35 53 (f)(5 ). The pr of fer se ss io n e nd ed earl y

when , as Walk er d es cri be s i t,

“ on e o f th e g ov ern m en t ag en ts was u np ro fes si on al .” W al ke r’s co un se l s ub m it te d a

pr of fer le tt er to th e di st ric t co ur t, an d in arg ui ng fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f in Wa l k e r’s

se nt en ci ng m em or an d u m, e x pl ai ne d th e co nt en ti ou s ci rcu m st an ces of th e pr of fer

in te rv ie w. I n i t s se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , th e go ve rn m en t ch al le ng ed th e tru th of

W al ke r’s pr of

fer an d av erre d th e in te rv ie w en de d be cau se th e of fic er s be li ev ed

W al ke r was lying

.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t, wit ho ut m en ti on in g th e ci rcu m st an ces of

W al ke r’s pr of

fer, fo un d W al ke r di d no t p r o v e s h e ha d “ tru th fu ll y pr ov id ed

in fo rm at io n reg ard in g he r of fen s e, at le as t in co m

pl et e de ta il .” Tha t fin di ng m ad e
W al ke r in el ig ib le for

saf et y -v al ve rel ie f. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 33 53 (f)(5 ).

-1 5-W al ke r co m pl ai ns he r co un se l “ fai le d to fu ll y ex pl ai n th e ag en t’s co nd uc t
du rin g th e pr of

fer se ss io n” to th e d i s tri ct co ur t. W al ke r ag ai n fai ls to es ta bl is h a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Eve n if a fu ll er ex pl an at io n wou ld ha ve be en of so m e va lu e,

an y fai lu re of pe rs ua si on on th is po in t i s f a r f ro m an erro r “ so se rio us th at co un se l

w a s no t fu nc ti on in g as th e ‘cou ns el ’ gu aran te ed th e de fen da nt by th e S i x t h

Am en dm en t.” St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87

.

2. Appea l

Nor is W al ke r ab le to sh ow he r co un se l was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng “ to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s erro ne ou s fin di ng th at W al ke r di d no t qu al ify fo r

a sa fet y va lv e.” “ Our rev ie w is pa rti cu la rly de fere nt ia l whe n rev ie win g a cl ai m th at

ap pe ll at e co un se l fai le d to rai se an ad di ti on al is su e on di rect ap pe al .” Ch arb on eau

v. Uni te d St at es , 70 2 F.3 d 11 32

, 11 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e “ m us t in du lg e a st ro ng

pr es um pt io n,” St ric kl an d

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 9, “ th at co un se l ha s ren de red ad eq ua te

as si st an ce an d m ad e al l si gn ifi can t de ci si on s fo r ta ct ic al reas on s rat he r th an th ro ug h

ne gl ect ,” Barn es v. Ham m er, 7 65 F.3d 81 0, 8 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

W al ke r’s co un se l effe ct iv el y rai se d two is su es on ap pe al bu t di d no t ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s sa fet y -v al ve fin di ng

. By de cl arat io n, W al ke r’s co un se l ex pl ai ne d he

“ di d no t in cl ud e th e sa fet y va lv e is su e in th e ap pe al be cau se [h e] di d no t be li ev e th ere

w a s e no ug h ev id en ce in th e reco rd fo r th e ap pe ll at e co ur t to fin d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t was cl earl y erro ne ou s in de nyin g sa fet y va lv e.” W al ke r ch al le ng es th at ta ct ic al

de ci si on

.

“ The Si xt h Am en dm en t do es no t req ui re th at co un se l rai se ev ery co lo rab le or

no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m on ap pe al .” New v. Uni te d S ta te s, 6 52 F.3d 94 9, 9 53 (8t h Ci r.
20 11 ).

W he re, as he re, “ ap pe ll at e co un se l co m pe te nt ly as se rts so m e cl ai m s on

a de fen da nt ’s be ha lf, it is di ffi cu lt to su st ai n a[n ] in effe ct iv e as si st an ce

-1 6-cl ai m ba se d on al le ga ti on s th at co un se l was de fic ie nt fo r fai li ng to as se rt

so m e ot he r cl ai m s.” Thi s is be cau se on e of ap p e l l a t e co un se l’s fu nc ti on s i s t o win no w th e av ai la bl e arg um en ts an d e xe rci se jud gm en t ab ou t wh ic h a re m os t l ik el y to su ccee d o n a pp eal

.

Gray v. Nor m an , 73 9 F.3 d 11 13

, 11 17 -1 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) ( a lt erat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Lin k v. Lu eb be rs , 46 9 F.3 d 11 97

, 12 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). It is di ffi cu lt to

ov erco m e St ric kl an d’s pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss un le ss th e “ ‘ign or ed is su es are cl earl y st ro ng er th an th os e pr es en te d.’” Id

. at 11 18 (q uo ti ng Lin k, 46 9 F.3 d at 12 05 ).

Alt ho ug h W al ke r m ai nt ai ns he r co un se l s h ou ld ha ve rai se d th e sa fet y -v al ve is su e on ap pe al

, sh e ne it he r co m pa res th e st ren gt h of th at cl ai m to th os e ap pe al is su es he r co un se l as se rte d no r ot he rwis e cas ts do ub t on he r co un se l’s st rat eg ic de ci si on no t

to rai se it

. W it ho ut ev id en ce to th e co nt rary, we pr es um e W al ke r’s co un se l’s de ci si on

no t t o a rg ue th e di st ric t cou rt’s safe ty-val ve fin di ng was cl earl y erro ne ou s “ ‘w as an

ex erci se of so un d ap pe ll at e st rat eg y .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 52 8 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 33 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ro e v . Delo , 16 0 F .3d 41 6, 4 18 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) ).

D. Ev id enti ar y H ea ri ng
W al ke r la st su gg es ts th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g her an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng “ be cau se th e cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l de al wit h

fu nd am en ta l ch oi ces th at co ul d ha ve on ly be en m ad e by W al ke r” an d a he ari ng wou ld

ha ve al lo wed he r to qu es ti on he r co un se l reg ard in g he r in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co u rt’s de ci si on to de ny an ev id en ti ary he ari ng fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n; ho wev er, w e are ob li ga te d ‘to lo ok be hi nd th at di sc ret io na ry de ci si on to
th e co ur t’s reject io n of th e cl ai m on it s m eri ts
, whi ch is a le ga l co nc lu si on th at we

rev ie w de no vo .’ ” Tho m as , 73 7 F.3 d at 12 06 (q uo ti ng Noe v. Uni te d St at es , 60 1 F.3 d

78 4, 7 92 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

Sect io n 2 25 5( b) req ui res an ev id en ti ary he ari ng “ [u ]nle ss th e m ot io n a nd th e f i l e s a n d reco rd s of th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow th at th e pr is on er is en ti tl ed to n o

-1 7-rel ie f.” No he ari ng is ne ces sa ry “ if (1 ) th e pe ti ti on er’s al le ga ti on s, acce pt ed as tru e,

wou ld no t en ti tl e th e pe ti ti on er to rel ie f, or (2 ) th e al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed as

tru e be cau se th ey are co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd

, in he ren tl y in cred ib le

, or co nc lu si on s

rat he r th an st at em en ts of fact .” San de rs v. Uni te d St at es , 34 1 F.3 d 72 0, 72 2 (8 th Ci r.
20 03 ).

Eva lu at in g W al ke r’s sp eci fic ba se s for req ue st in g an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ci de d “ [t]he fil es an d reco rd s of th is cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow W al ke r is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f.” The di st ric t co ur t fu rth er fo un d “ W al ke r fai l[e d] to id en ti fy

an y is su e whe re fu rth er fact ua l de ve lo pm en t wou ld be m at eri al t o r e s o l ut io n of th e is su es in th is cas e.” Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd

, w e de te ct no ab us e of

di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to de ny an ev id en ti ary he ar i n g

. See

Tin ajero -Ort iz , 63 5 F .3d at 1 10 6.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 8-