FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 27 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 43 22 -MGC MOISES E. BURE, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us STATE OF FLORIDA, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 2, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: On J un e 1 0, 2 00 8, i n t he Cir cu itCo urt fo r Mi am i-Da de Co un ty, Fl or id a, ajury foundMo is es E. Bure gu il ty of Unl awfu l Dri vi ng as aHabi tu al Traffi c

Offen de r, a fel on y

of t he th irdde gr ee, se e Fl a. St at . § 3 22 .34 (5 ), an d, o n Decem be r 11 , 20 08 , th e Ci rcu itCo urt s en te nc edhi m to pri so n fo r 10 y ears , with a fiv e-year m an da to ry

sen te nc e as anhabi tu al off en de r. Se e Fla . Sta t. § 77 5.0 84 (4 ). He ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e, an d t he Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal affi rm ed . Bur e v . Sta te , 50 So .3d11 45 (Fl a. App . 3dDis t. 2 01 0) . He is be fo re th is co urt o n a n app eal of an o rd er o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a d en y in g h is pe ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity (“ COA”) on th ree i ss ue s: (1) whet he r Bu re’s “ co nv ic ti on is th e res ul t o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t i n tha t the pro se cu to r m ad e im pr op er re m ark s dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t” ; (2 ) whe th er “ th e St at e fai le d t o p ro vi de [Bu re] with ad equa te di sc ov ery”; an d (3 ) whe th er “ th e tr ia l co urt i m pr op erl y pe rm it te d [B ur e] to pr oc eed pr o s eat t ria l an d s en te nc in g.” I. The fed eral habe as co rp us st atut e, 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4, as am en de d b y th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”), an d a s in te rp ret edby the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, l im it s the po wer o f a fed eral co urt to gra nta writof h ab eas co rp us va cat in g t he co nv ic ti onof ast at e p ris on er o n t he 2gr ou ndth atth e co nv ic ti on was o bt ai ne d i n v io la ti on of t he Co ns ti tu ti on of t he

Uni te d S ta te s. Fi rs t, a wri t m ay no t i ss ue un le ss , with c ert ai n e xc ep ti on s, the pr is on er h as ex haus te d h is st at e rem ed ie s. See 28 U.S. C. § 2 25 4( b) , (c); Cu ll in v. Pi nh ol st er, _

__U.S. __

__ , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 38 8, 1 39 8, 1 79 L.Ed.2d55 7 (2 01 1) . The pr is on er ex haus ts hi s s ta te rem ed ie s b y pre se nt in g h is co ns ti tu ti on al cla im to th e St at e co urts , to affo rdth em anop po rtu ni ty to co rrec t an y erro r th atm ay

ha ve oc cu rred . Dun can v. Hen ry , 51 3 U.S. 3 64 , 36 5, 1 15 S.Ct . 88 7, 8 88 , 13 0 L.Ed .2d 86 5 (1 99 5) . If th e p ris on er h as do ne th is , andth e St at e co urts “ ad jud ic at ed ” h is cl ai m “ onth e m eri ts ,” th e wri t sh al l n otbe gra nt ed. . . un le ss th e ad jud ic at io n . . . (1 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry to , or i nv ol ve d a n un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or (2 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edonanun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he St at e co urt p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . The st atut ory

ph ras e “ cl earl y

est ab li sh edFed eral law” refe rs on ly to “ th e ho ld in gs , as o pp os edto th e d ic ta ,” of th e Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s ex ta ntat t he ti m e o f th e St at e co urt ad jud ic at io n. Will ia m s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 2, 1 20 S. Ct . 14 95 , 15 23 , 14 6 L. Ed. 2 d 3 89 (20 00 ). A Stat e co urt d eci si on is “ co nt rary to” 3a Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng “ if t he st at e co urt arriv es at aco nc lu si on op po si te to th at

reac he d b y

[th e Supr em e] Court o n aqu es ti on of l aw orif t he st at e co urt d eci de s a cas e d iff eren tl y th an[th e Supr em e] Cou rt h as on a se t o f m at eri al ly in di st in gu is habl e fac ts .” Id . at 4 12 –1 3, 1 20 S. Ct. at15 23 . A Stat e co urt d eci si on 1 in vo lv es anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f a Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng if t he Sta te co urt co rrec tl y id en ti fie s t he ho ld in g b utun reas on ab ly app li es itto th e fac ts of t he pr is on er’s cas e. Id . at 4 07 , 12 0 S .Ct. at15 20 . An u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f a Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng is di ffer en t fr om anin co rrec t ap pl ic at io n app li cat io n o f a Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng . Harrin gt on v. Ri ch te r, 56 2 U. S. _

__ _, 1 31 S. Ct. 7 70 , 78 5, 1 78 L. Ed.2d62 4 (2 01 1) (qu ot in g W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 10 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 22 ). A fede ral habe as co urt m ig ht co ns id er the Sta te co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f a Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng in co rrec t wer e it rev ie win g t he Sta te co urt’s d eci si on as a n app el la te co urt wo ul d o n d ire ctap pe al . Bu t the habe as co urt i s n otco nduc ti ng su chrev ie w. AED PA, ha vi ng li m it edth e co urt’s au th or it y

to gra ntth e wri t, p recl ud es th e co urt fr om is su in g t he writev en whe n i t “ co nc lu de s i n i ts in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t tha t the st at e-co urt d eci si on
“When no Supreme Court pre cede nt is on point , . . . a state c ourt’s conc lusion cannot be 1 ‘contra ry to clearly established F eder al law.’ ” Dombrow ski v. Mingo, 543 F .3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotingWashington v. Crosby , 324 F.3d 1263, 1265 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 4ap pl ie d [t he Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng ] in co rrec tl y .” W oo df or d v . Vis ci ot ti , 53 7 U.S. 19 , 25 , 12 3 S . Ct. 3 57 , 36 0, 1 54 L. Ed.2d27 9 (2 00 2) . “ [T]he p ur po se of AEDPA is to en su re tha t fe de ral habe as co rp us rel ie f fu nc ti on s as a ‘gua rdag ai ns t ex tre m e m al fu nc ti on s i n t he st at e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em s,’ andno t as a m ean s o f erro r co rrec ti on .” Green e v . Fis he r, __ _ U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 32 S. Ct. 3 8, 4 3– 44 , 18 1 L. Ed.2d33 6 (2 01 1) (qu ot in g Harrin gt on , 56 2 U.S. at__ __ , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6) . Sect io n 2 25 4( d) ’s “ st an da rdforev al ua ti ng st at e-co urt ru li ng s [i s the refo re] hi gh ly defer en ti al ”, W oo df or d, 5 37 U.S. at 2 4, 1 23 S. Ct. at36 0, an d “ di ffi cu ltto m eet ,” Harri ng to n, 5 62 U.S. at _

__ _, 1 31 S. Ct. a 7 86 ; i t “ de m an ds th atst at e-co urt de ci si on s b e g iv enth e b en efi t o f th e d oubt .” W oo df or d, 5 37 U.S. at 2 4, 1 23 S. Ct. at36 0. To o bt ai n h ab eas rel ie f, a st at e p ris on er m us t s ho w th at“ th ere i s n o 2 po ss ib il it y

fai rm in de d ju ris ts co ul d d is ag ree t ha t the st at e co urt's de ci si onco nf li ct s with [t he Supr em e] Cou rt' s p rece de nt s . . . ., tha t the st at e co urt's rul in g . . . was s o la ck in g i n ju st ifi cat io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d in ex is ti ng law b ey on d a ny po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harri ng to n, 5 62 U.S. at _

__ _, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 6. With th es e p rin ci pl es inha nd , we

The extent of defe renc e acc orded a Stat e co u rt ’s decision will depend, in part, on the 2 specific ity of the Supreme Court holding the State court applied. I f the holding is specific , the rang e of rea sonablene ss may be narr ow. I f the holding is g ener al, the ra n ge o f rea sonablene ss may be broad. Yar

rough v. Alvara do, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 2149, 158 L . Ed.2d 938 (2004). 5tu rnto th e th ree i ss ue s s etou t i n t he COA, con si de rin g t he m inord er. II. Bu re cl ai m s t ha t dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t, the pro se cu to r in fri ng edhi s Fi fth Am en dm en t ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t b y im pr op erl y co m m en ti ng onhi s fa il ur e to te st ify by rem in di ng th e jury tha t h is st at em en ts were n otev id en ce. The Fif th Am en dm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n p ro vi de s tha t “No pe rs on sh al l . . . be c om

pe ll edinan y

cri m in al cas e to be a witne ss ag ai ns t hi m se lf.” U.S. Con st . Am en d. V. In Uni te d Sta tes v. McGa ri ty , we exp la in ed th ata pr os ecu to r’s st at em en t i s an im pr op er co m

m en t o n ade fen da nt ’s dec is io n t o ex erci se th is rig htto rem ai n s il en t i f “ (1 ) th e st at em en t was man if es tl y in te nded to be a co m m en t o n t he de fen dant ’s fai lu re t o t es ti fy ; o r (2 ) th e st at em en t was of s uc h a ch arac te r th ata jury w ou ldna tu ral ly andne ces sa ril y tak e itto be a co m

m en t o n th e fai lure o f th e acc us edto tes ti fy .” 66 9 F .3d12 18 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . In Dun ca n v . St

yn ch co mbe , 70 4 F .2d12 13 , 12 15 –1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) , th e pr os ecu to r st at ed : “ The re h as be enno ev id en ce i n thi s ca se fro m th e d efen se at a ll th at[th e d efen da nt ] Dun can was n otinth atho us e o n M on da y .” Dun can co nt en de d t ha t “ th e rem arkwas a n i m pe rm is si bl e ref

eren ce t o h is fai lu re t o t es ti fy , an d t ha t i t h adth e eff

ectof s hi fti ng th e b ur de n o f pr oo f to [hi m ]. ” W e sa id ,

6It app ears m or e li ke ly tha t the pro se cu to r was att em pt in g t o p oi ntou t to th e jury the lac k o f ev id en ce co nc ern in g Du nc an 's wh ereabo ut s at th e ti m e o f th e ro bb ery. A com m en t o n t he fai lu re o f th e d efen se , as op po se d t o t ha t o f th e d efen da nt , to co un te r orex pl ai n t he tes ti m on y pr es en te d o r ev id en ce i nt ro du cedis no t an in fri ng em en t o f th e de fen da nt 's fi fth am en dm en t p riv il eg e. The p ro se cu to r's co m m en t d id no t s hi ft t he bu rd enof p ro of to Dun can , bec au se an y

po ss ib le pr ejud ic e whi chmig htot he rwis e h av e res ul te d fr om th e co m m en t was cu redby the co urt's in st ru ct io ns reg ard in g the bu rd enof p ro of . Id . (ci ta ti on s o mit te d) . In Gri ff in v. Ca li fo rn ia , th e p ro se cu to r, in clo si ng arg um en t t o the jury, di sc us se d t he de fen dant ’s fai lu re t o t es ti fy an d t ol d t he jury th atitco ul d c on si de r th e d efen da nt ’s fai lu re t o t ak e th e st an d. Th e Co urt h el d tha t the co m m en ts vi ol at ed“ th e Sel f-In cri m in at io n C laus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t.” 3 80 U.S. 60 9, 61 1- 13 , 85 S.Ct . 12 29 , 12 31 -3 2, 1 4 L.Ed .2d10 6 (1 96 5) . Bu re h as no t s ho wn tha t the Flo rid a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal , inreject in g hi s ar gu m en t, re nd ereda de ci si on th atis no t en ti tl edto ADEPA defe ren ce. Bure rep res en te d h im se lf a t tria l b utdi d n ottes ti fy . Duri ng clo si ng arg um en t, the pr os ecu to r ex pl ai ne d t o the jury th atitco ul d c on si de r on ly the ev id en ce tha t was pr es en te d, n otan y

co m m en ts th atBure m ad e whi le rep res en ti ng hi m se lf. Be cau se th e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en ts were n otsu chth ata jury w ou ldne ces sa ril y pe rcei ve th em as c omm en ta ry

on Bure’s fai lu re t o t es ti fy , th e rec or d d idno t es tabl is h a Fi fth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . 7II.

Bu re cl ai m s t ha t the Sta te fai le d t o p ro vi de hi m with a de qu at e d is co ve ry pr etria l. The Fif

th Am en dm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n p ro te ct s a de fen da ntfro m

th e d ep riv at io n o f hi s “ li fe, l ib erty , or p ro pe rty, with ou t due pr oc es s o f la w.” U.S. Con st . Am en d. V. The C on st itut io n, h owe ve r, pr ov id es no ge ne ral rig htto di sc ov ery in cri m in al cas es . W ea th er fo rd v. Bur se y , 42 9 U.S. 5 45 , 55 9, 9 7 S .Ct. 8 37 , 84 6, 5 1 L.Ed .2d30 (19 77 ). If th e p ro se cu ti on supp res se s reque st edev id en ce fa vo rab le to anaccu se d wh ic h i s m at eri al to gu il t o r pu ni sh m en t, tha t s up pr es si on vi ol at es du e p ro ces s. Bra dyv. Mar ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 83 , 87 , 83 S.Ct . 11 94 , 11 96 –9 7, 1 0 L.Ed .2d21 5 (1 96 3) . The p ro se cu ti onne edno t di sc lo se it s en ti re fi le to th e d efen se , on ly evi de nc e th atwou ldde pr iv e th e acc us ed of a fai r tr ia l i f itwere s up pr es se d. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bagl ey , 47 3 U.S. 6 67 , 67 5, 10 5 S .Ct. 3 37 5, 3 37 9, 8 7 L.Ed .2d48 1 (1 98 5) . Suc h e vi de nc e is m at eri al if “ th ere is a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, h adth e ev id en ce b een di sc lo se d t o t he de fen se , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Id
. at 6 82 , 10 5 S .Ct. at33 83 . Here, l ib eral ly con st ru in g B ur e’s di sc ov ery cl ai m as o ne in vo ki ng du e pr oc es s ri gh ts or Bra dy , th e rec or d s ho ws tha t h e rec ei ve d t he do cu m en ts co nc ern in g h is cas e b efo re tria l. Bu re d idno t ex pl ai n e xa ct ly wha t o th er

“ ev id en ce” s ho ul d h av e b eendi sc lo se d, n ordi d h e expl ai n h ow the all eg ed 8om is si on de pr iv edhi m of afun da m en ta ll y

fai r tr ia l o r ho w di sc lo su re wo ul d h av e res ul te d i n am or e fav or ab le ou tc om e attri al . III. Bu re cl ai m s t ha t the Cir cu itCo urt i m pr op erl y pe rm it te d h im

to rep res en t hi m se lf. The Six th Am en dm en t g ran ts anaccu se d t he rig htto rep res en t h im se lf a t tri al . Far et ta v. Ca li

fo rn ia , 42 2 U.S. 8 06 , 81 9– 20 , 95 S.Ct . 25 25 , 25 33 , 45 L.Ed.2 d 5 62 (19 75 ). Befo re re pr es en ti ng hi m se lf, ade fen da ntm us t m ak e a cl ear an d u ne qu iv oc al reque stto do so an d b e m ad e aware of t he be ne fit s h e rel in qu is he s b y

do in g s o. Id
. at 8 35 , 95 S.Ct . at 2 54 1. Th e co urt m us t en su re tha t he kn owi ng ly andin te ll ig en tl y ch oo se s t o fo reg o t he se be ne fit s b y m ak in g h im aware of t he “ da ng ers an d d is adva nt ag es of s el f-re pr es en ta ti on , so th atth e rec or d wil l es tabl is h t ha t h e kno ws wh athe is do in g a ndhi s ch oi ce i s m ad e wit h e y es op en .” Id
. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . A cou rt m ay fin d ade fen da ntco m

pe te ntto waiv e hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el an d re pr es en t h im se lf i f he ha s a “ rat io na l u nd ers ta nd in g” of th e p ro ceed in gs . Muh amma d v . Sec ’y, Dep t. o f Co rr . , 55 4 F .3d94 9, 9 56 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The re co rdsh ows th atth e Ci rcu itCo urt co m pl ie d wi th Far et ta be fo re al lo win g B ur e to rep res en t h im se lf. Th ere i s n ot hi ng inth e rec or d t ha t wo ul d h av e 9pu t the co urt o n n ot ic e th atBure was no t co m pe te ntwaiv e th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el an d rep res en t h im se lf. Insh ort, the re i s n ot hi ng inth e rec or d t ha t wo ul d s up po rt a n arg um en t tha t the de ci si on to all ow Bu re t o re pr es en t h im se lf wa s co nt rary to, o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, a Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt ho ld in g— sp eci fic al ly, Far et ta v. Ca li fo rn ia . The jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt i s, ac co rd in gl y , AFFIR MED.

10