T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; neverthel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### N ove m b e r2,2006 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. 05- 8101 v . (D . o f W y o .) CH RI S T OP HE R B L AS P ADI L L A,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR - 1 4 8 - D)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL, and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , D efe ndant - A ppel l antC hr i s t opherPadi l l a w as c o n v icte d o f

c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss m e th a m p h e tam in e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), (b )(1 )(B ) a n d 8 4 6 . H e n o w a p p e a ls h is 76- m onth s ent ence , al l egi ng i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . Fort he r eas ons s t a t e d b e l o w, we AFF I RM .- 2- I . Backg r ound P a d ill a w a s a rre ste d o n M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e c o m p lain t ag a in st h im c o n tain e d fo u r c o u n ts: (1 ) c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m ethamphet ami ne; ( 2) actual di s tr i but i on of m ethamphet ami ne; ( 3) actual d istrib u tio n o f

c o c a in e ; an d (4 ) u sin g a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e u n law f u llyw h ile in pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm . A ft erw ai vi ng hi s r i ghtt o a pr el i m i naryhear i ng and a s peedytr i al , Padi l l a, w i th t he as s i s t ance of couns el , ent er ed i nt o pl ea ne got i at i ons w i th the G overnm ent . O n J ul y13, 2005, Padi l l a and the G overnm entfi l ed a pl ea agr eements t i pul at i ng thatPadi l l a w oul d pl ead gui l tyonl yt o the cons pi r acy char ge. T he agr eementfur thers t i pul at ed thatPadi l l a w oul d agr ee t o a tw o- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t o f

h is o ffe n se lev e l fo r th e c rim e a n d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld re c o m m e n d a se n ten c e a t th e lo w e n d o f th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e . P a d ill a en tered this plea in the fa ce o f u n ce rt aintyreg ard ing h is cri m inal h ist o ryleve l. In p arti cu lar, h e w as u n su re a t th e ti m e o f h is plea w h ethe r his crim inal h ist o ry c a teg o ryw o u ld b e I, II o r III. T h e d istric t co u rt in fo rm e d h im o f th e im p a c t th is coul d have on hi s eventual s ent ence . T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rtassig n ed P ad il la a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f III. C om bi ned w i th hi s offe ns e l evel of 25 thi s y i el ded an a dvi s orys ent enci ng r ange of 70 t o 87 m onths i ncar cer at i on. Padi l l a fi l ed a mot i on fordow nw ar d departur e, ar gui ng t hatthe pr es ent ence r epor tover s t at ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . T he di s tr i ct cou rtden i ed the m oti on and sent enced P adil l a t o 7 6 m on ths.Padi l l a al s o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s m ot i on 2 fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture. T h is argu m en t i s w ith o u t m erit . B efo re Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), this co u rtd id n o t r ev iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c isio n to d e n ya d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re e x c e p t w h e re th e d istric t co u rt c lea rly b e lie v e d its e lf

le g a lly p re c lu d e d f

ro m d o in g s o . See Uni t ed Stat es v. For t i er , 180 F . 3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 3 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h is m ad e se n se in the e ra o f th e m an d atory G ui del i nes and i s ar guabl ys uper fl uous now t hatt he G ui del i nes ar e advi s or yand al l s ent ence s ar e s ubj ectt o r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s . N onethel es s , t he di s tr i ct courti n thi s cas e made cl eari thad di s cr et i on t o gr antPadi l l a’ s m ot i on for dow nw ar d departur e and w e ther efor e have no bas i s t o r evi ew t hi s out s i de the ov eral l con t ext of reas on ableness.

- 3- Padi l l a fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , ar gui ng the s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e and thathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . B el i evi ng th is a p p e a l f

riv o lo u s, P a d ill a ’s c o u n se l, R ich a rd Ja m iso n , file d a b rie f a lo n g w ith a mot i on t o w i thdr aw underA n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). I I . D i s cus s i on A . Sent enci ng E rror P a d ill a ’s first c o n ten tio n is th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in se n ten c in g h im to 76 m onths des pi t e the part i es ’ s t i pul at ed r ecomm endat i on fora s ent ence of 70 m onths . W e cons true thi s as an ar gum entt hatt he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e under

2 Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). A s ent ence w i thi n a corr ect l ycal cul at ed G ui del i ne r ange i s ent i t l ed t o a p re s u m p tio n o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1054–55 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “The defe ndantm ayr ebutt hi s pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng th a t th e se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le in lig h t o f th e . . . se n ten c in g fa c to rs la id o u t in- 4-

§ 3553( a) . ” Id . a t 1 0 5 5 . T h e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc a lcu late d th e a p p lica b le G ui del i ne r ange gi ven Padi l l a’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryand offens e l evel . T he court ’ s s ent ence , w hi l e nott he s ent ence r ecomm ended byPadi l l a and the G o v ern m en t, n o n ethe less fe ll w ith in the ad v isoryG u ideline ra n g e. Itis th ere fo re e n title d to a p re s u m p tio n o f re a s o n a b le n e s s . Id. a t 1 0 5 4

– 5 5 . O n a p p e a l, P a d ill a has pr ovi ded no bas i s upon w hi ch thi s pr es um pt i on s houl d be ques t i oned, l et al on e rebut t ed. In addit i on t o h i s at t orney ’s A nd ers br i ef, Padi l l a has s ubm i t t ed on l ya fou r- pag e st at em ent ar gu i ng the ineffecti ven ess of his cou nsel . B ecause Padi l l a’ s s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e and be caus e Padi l l a has not r ebut t ed thi s pr es um pt i on, w e conc l ude thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed w as r eas onabl e. B . I neffect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ounsel Padi l l a nextar gues thatJ ami s on pr ovi ded hi m i neffect i ve as s i s t ance and this resu lt ed in h is un sati sfa ctoryp lea b arg ain a n d sen tenc e. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt has no t ed that“[i ]n l i gh tof the w ayou r s y st em has dev el op ed, i n m ostcases a m ot i on [forhabea s corpus ] br oughtunder§ 2255 i s pr efe r abl e t o di r ectappea l for deci di ng cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance . ” Mas s ar o v. Uni t ed Stat es , 53 8 U. S. 500, 504 ( 2003) . T hi s i s beca us e the pur s ui tof an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m on di r ectappea l r equi r es the appe l l at e courtt o pr ocee d on a tr i al courtr ecor d not d ev elop ed w ith the o bject of p rov ing ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce in m ind . T h is co n ce rn ani m at ed ourhol di ng that“[i ] neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ‘ s houl d be br oughti n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs , noton di r ectappea l . Such cl ai m s br oughton- 5-

d ir ec t app ea l are p resu m p ti v elyd ism issi b le, an d v irtuallyall w il l be d ism issed . ’” Uni t ed Stat es v. C alder on , 428 F. 3d 928, 931 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. G al l ow ay , 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 )) . P a d ill a b a se s h is a rg u m e n t fo r in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o n Ja m iso n ’s fa ilu re to “pr es entthe tw o keyw i tnes s es i n [s i c] D efe ndant s [s i c] behal f thatD efe ndanthad tw o not ar i zed s t at ement s fr om . . . . ” A pl t . B r . at1. T hes e s t at ement s ar e al l eged t o be thos e of c el l m at es of pr i s oner s w i th know l edge of a pl otbyas s oci at es of Padi l l a t o have the cha r ges agai ns tPadi l l a trum ped- up byoffe r i ng fal s e t es t i m ony to p ro s e c u to rs a b o u t P a d illa ’s u s e o f a fir e a rm in th e c o lle c tio n o f d ru g d e b ts . E v en assu m ing the a cc u rac yan d p ersu asiv en ess o f th ese stat em en ts, P ad il la’s ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce claim raises p rec isel ythe c o n ce rns a b o u t r ec o rd devel opm entart i cul at ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n Massaro . W hi l e “[ t ] her e may be ca s es i n w hi ch tr i al couns el ’ s i neffect i venes s i s s o appar entfr om the r ecor d” th a t s u c h c o n c e rn s a re n o t b o rn e o u t, th is is n o t s u c h a c a s e . Massaro , 538 U . S. at 508. I I I . C oncl usi on F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AF F I RM t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta n d GR ANT J a mi s o n ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge