T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e R ob ertS . L as ni k, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C our tf orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. L AR R Y J OR DA N, AK A B i g Al , AK A A l J or da n, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50351 D . C . N o. 2: 05 -c r- 00 92 0-R S W L -4 ME MOR AN DU M *

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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R ona l d S . W . L e w , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 10, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: R E IN H A R D T and M U R G U IA , C i rc ui tJudg es , and L A S N IK , D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED MA Y28 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

L a rry J o r d a n p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it ar o b b e ry , in v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 5 1 ( a ) , f

o rw h i c h h e r e c e i v e d a tw e n ty y e a rp r i s o n t e r m. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e f

us e d t o a l l ow J or da n t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a . J or da n r a i s e s f our chal l enges on app ea l : (1) thathi s gui l ty pl eaw as i nv ol un t ary bec ause hi s l aw ye r, E va ns , w a s unpr e pa r e d f ortr i a l ; ( 2) tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on a nd deni ed hi m ef

fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l by re j ec t i ng E vans’ s r equestfor a hear i ng ac com m od at i on ; (3) thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on and d eni ed hi m ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l by re j ec t i ng E vans’ s r equestfor acont i nu ance to p r e p a r e f

o rc r o s s - e x a m in in g J o r d a n ’s c o - d e f e n d a n t, H o lif

ie ld , w h o d e c id e d to pl e a d gui l ty a nd t e s t i f

y a ga i ns tJ or da n on the e ve of tr i a l ; a nd ( 4) tha tE va ns p r o v id e d c o n s titu tio n a lly in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. G i ven the re cord i n thi s c as e, w e a re com pel l ed t o aff i rm . If Jordan’ s pl ea w as vo l un t ary, then Jordan w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l the deni al of the cont i nu ance a n d d e n ia l o f

r e a l- tim e r e p o r tin g . See U n i ted S ta tes v. L o

p ez-A rm en tra , 400 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 75 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ [I ] ti s w el l -s ett l ed thatan un cond i t i on al gu i l ty pl ea c ons t i tut e s a w a i ve rof

the r i ghtt o appe a l a l l nonj ur i s di c t i ona l a nt e c e de ntrul i ngs a nd c ur e s a l l a nt e c e de ntc ons t i tut i ona l de f e c t s . ” ) . B ut , “ [ i ] tgoe s w i thouts a y i ng thata pl eam ustbe vo l un t ary t o b e c on st i tut i on al . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Kaczy nski , 239 F . 3d 1108, 1114 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . A pl e a i s i nvol unt a ry i f “ i ti s the pr oduc tof3

th r e a ts , im p r o p e rp r o m is e s , o ro th e rf o rm s o f w r o n g f u l c o e r c io n .” U

ni ted Stat es v. H erna nd ez , 20 3 F . 3d 61 4, 62 6 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). In theory, i f the di stri ctcourt abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the c ont i nua nc e orr e a l - t i m e r e por t i ng i t“ m i ght w e l l ha ve be e n i nt e rpr e t e d by[ the de f e nda nt ] a s a s i gn tha thi s i nt e r e s t s w oul d be je o p a r d iz e d if

h e c h o s e to g o to tr ia l,” r e n d e r in g th e p le a in v o lu n ta ry . U ni ted Stat es v . A nde rs on , 993 F . 2d 1435, 1438 ( 9th C i r . 1993) . W hi l e w e ha ve s e r i ous que s t i ons abou tthe di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d eny r ea l -t i m e r eport i ng , Jordan’ s c ou nsel m a de i tc l e a ra tor a l a r gum e nttha the w a s nota r gui ng tha tthi s de c i s i on a l one m a de the pl e a i nvol unt a ry . W i th r e s pe c tt o the c ont i nua nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not ab u s e its “b r o a d d is c r e tio n ” to d e n y c o n tin u a n c e s . Mor r is v . Slappy , 461 U . S . 1, 1 1 -1 2 (1 9 8 3 ). O n th i s reco rd , w e co n cl u d e th atJo rd an ’ s p l ea w as v o l u n t ary. J or da n’ s r e m a i ni ng c ha l l e nge s r e l a t e t o w he the rhe r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . J or da n ha s i de nt i f i e d a num be rof

f a c t s tha tc oul d s uppor tthe concl usi on thathe di d n otre ce i ve ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l , bu tthe re cord before us i s notsuff

i ci ent l y devel op ed for us t o m ake a n except i on t o o ur “ general rul e ” tha tw e “ do notr e vi e w c ha l l e nge s t o the e f f e c t i ve ne s s of

de f e ns e c ouns e l on di re ctappeal . ” U

ni te d State s v . Mor e land , 622 F . 3d 1147, 1157 ( 9th C i r . 2010) (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed).4

A s t o the de f

i c i e ntpe r f

or m a nc e pr ong of

hi s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l cl ai m , Jordan po i nt s t o the fol l ow i ng fa ct s. O n the eve of tri al w hen H ol i fi el d d ec i ded t o p l ea d g ui l ty a nd t es t i fyagai nstJordan— an i nci dentthe di stri ct c o u r t d e s c r ib e da s “n o t u n u s u a l”

— E v a n s a d m itte d th a t h e w a s “n o t p r e p a r e d a t a ll” t o pr oc e e d w i th tr i a l be c a us e he w a s “ r e a l l y unpr e pa r e d” t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the go vernm ent ’ s now -c hi ef w i tness , H ol i fi el d. H e apo l og i ze d for w hathe adm i tt ed w a s i na de qua t e pr e pa r a t i on a nd r e pe a t e dl y s t a t e d tha the c oul d notpr ovi de

“ adequat e a nd ef

fe ct i ve re pres ent at i on t o M r. Jordan” w i tho uta c on t i nu ance , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d. P r e vi ous l y , E va ns ha d s t a t e d tha thi s he a r i ng d is ab ility w o u ld r e n d e rh im “u n ab le to p r o v id e e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l to de f e nda ntJ or da n. ” A l though the s e f a c t s c oul d s uppor ta c onc l us i on tha tE va ns pr ovi de d de f

i c i e ntr e pr e s e nt a t i on, the r e c or d c ont a i ns c onf l i c t i ng e vi de nc e . F or e x a m p le , E v a n s la te ra d v is e d th e c o u r t th a t h e h a d b e e n “a d e q u a te ly p r e p a r e d ” to go t o tri al . T hi s c on fl i cti s bes tre sol ved b y a n evi dent i ary hea ri ng i n w hi ch coun se l w i l l have “ an op po rtun i ty t o exp l ai n h i s a ct i on s. ” U ni te d State s v . Mc G ow an , 668 F . 3d 60 1, 60 6 (9th C i r. 20 12 ). A s t o th e p r e

j u d i c e p r o n g o f

h i s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m, J or da n a l l e ge s tha t“ butf orc ouns e l ’ s e rr or s , he w oul d notha ve pl e a de d gui l ty a nd w ou l d h ave i nsi st ed on go i ng t o tri al . ” Hi l l v. L o ckh a rt , 4 7 4 U. S. 5 2 , 5 7 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . To5

supp ortthi s a l l egat i on , Jordan po i nt s t o the fol l ow i ng fa ct s. H e pl ed gu i l ty the day a f t e rE va ns w a s c om pe l l e d t o gi ve a n ope ni ng s t a t e m e ntde s pi t e ha vi ng a dvi s e d the di stri ctcourt(f

or the se cond t i m e) thathe coul d n ot“ ef fe ct i vel y r epre se ntM r. Jordan” w i tho uta c on t i nu ance . U nt i l the day of hi s gui l ty pl ea , Jordan had m a ni f e s t e d a c l e a rde s i r e t o go t o tr i a l ; he obj e c t e d t o e ve ry c ont i nua nc e , f i l e d a s pe e dy tr i a l m ot i on, a nd e ve n r e j e c t e d a m or e f

a vor abl e pl e a de a l s hor t l y be f or e the da t e on w hi c h tr i a l w a s s c he dul e d t o c om m e nc e . A s J or da n e xpl a i ns , gi ve n hi s a ge and p oo r hea l th, any s ent ence w ou l d i n h i s vi ew have been the equi val entof a l i fe s e nt e nc e . A l m os ti m m e di a t e l y a f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty , J or da n m ove d t o r e m ove E vans as coun se l and w i thd ra w hi s pl ea . Jordan thu s pre se nt s s peci fi c f ac t s that supp orthi s c on t ent i on thathe pl ed gu i l ty onl y bec ause hi s l aw ye r w as un prepare d t o d ef end h i m . T he go vernm entar gu es t o the contra ry , ho w ever , thatJordan pl ed gu i l ty bec ause he m ade astra t egi c dec i si on thathi s l i kel i ho od of prevai l i ng attri al w as si g n i fi can t l y d i m i n i sh ed w h en H o l i fi el d d eci d ed t o t est i fy ag ai n sth i m . Ital so p o i n t s t o cert ai n i n co n si st en ci es i n Jo rd an ’ s st o ry. T h i s factu al d i sp u t e i s b est r e s o lv e d b y a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See U ni ted Stat es v. L a u g h lin , 93 3 F . 2d 78 6, 78 8-89 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( “ C hal l enge by w ayof a habeas p r o c e e d in g is p r e f

e r ab le b e c a u s e it p e rm its th e d e f e n d a n t to d e v e lo p a r e c o r d a s to w hatcoun se l di d, w hy i tw as do ne, and w hat , i f a ny, prej ud i ce re sul t ed. ”) .6

B ec au se th e r ec o rd is in su ff icien tl y d ev elo p ed re g ar d in g co u n se l’ s p e r f o rm a n c e , w e m u s t d e n y J o r d a n ’s c h a lle n g e s o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. Mc G ow an , 668 F .3 d a t 6 0 6 ; Mor e land , 6 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 7 ; L a u g h lin , 9 3 3 F .2 da t 7 8 9 . O u rd e n ia l, how e ve r , i s w i thoutpr e j udi c e t o J or da n’ s r e ne w a l of hi s c ha l l e nge r e ga r di ng i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n a c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ng unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255.

AF F I RME D.