-1- 

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

### Jan u ary31,2007 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 TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

Pl ai nt i ff–A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 7050 v . ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 3 8 9 - W) F RA NC I S CO J AVI E R MADRI DM ON GE, (E .D . O k la .)

D e fe n d a n t– A p p e llan t. OR DER B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T hi s i s a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 appea l i n w hi ch A ppel l antFr anci s co J avi er M adr i d- M onge i s r epr es ent ed bycouns el appoi nt ed undert he pr ovi s i ons of the C rim in a l Ju stic e A c t. A p p e llan t p lea d e d g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e coc ai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) and 18 U . S . C . § 2 , an d w as se n tenc ed to 1 2 0 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t, the m an d atory m i ni m um under§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . A ppel l antt hen fi l ed the i ns t antm ot i on w i th t he di s tr i ctcourtt o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ecthi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n w hi ch he a r gued that( 1) the deni al of effec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el at s ent enci ng pr ecl uded cons i der at i on of the s afe tyval ve pr ovi s i on cont ai ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) ; ( 2) hi s s ent ence w as i m pos ed bas ed on fa ct s notfound byt he-2-

j uryand cal culat ed b ased on m and at oryapp l i cat i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes; a n d (3 ) th e d e n ial o f

e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l p re v e n ted d ire c t ap p e a l. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied A p p ell an t’ s firsttw o claim s an d referred the th ir d to a m a g istra te ju d g e in o rd e r to c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g . T h e m a g istra te j udge conduc t ed the hea r i ng and i s s ued a r eportand r ecomm endat i on s ugges t i ng d e n ial o f

A p p e llan t’s th ird c laim , w h ich th e d istric t co u rt a d o p ted in a se p a ra te o rde r. A ppel l antadvanc es t o thi s cour tthe s ame ar gum ent s he made bel ow on t he fi r s tand thi r d cl ai m s ; he omi t s the s econd c l ai m . H ow ever , ourcons i der at i on of th e se c laim s is p re d ica ted o n o u r iss u a n c e o f a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) . A ppel l anti s ent i t l ed t o a C O A onl yi f he makes a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o do s o, A ppel l antm us tdemonstr at e “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , for thatm att er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to p ro c e e d f

u rt h e r.” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i on o m itted). In o ther w o rds, th e a p p li ca n t m u st sho w that the d istri ct co u rt ’s r es ol ut i on of the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w as ei ther“deba t abl e orw r ong. ” Id. T he di s tr i ctcourtt hor oughl yeval uat ed A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m thati neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e fors afe tyval ve r el i ef byr evi ew i ng the ent i r e r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he tr ans cr i ptof the s ent enci ng hear i ng. W e agr eeA p p ell an t bea rs th e b u rde n o f e stab li sh ing that h is “co u n sel’s 1 r epr es ent at i on fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , ” Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 8 (1 9 8 4 ), an d “ th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t, bu t fo r c o u n se l’s u n p ro fe ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld have be en di ffe r ent , ” id . at694. -3- w i th the di s tr i ctcourtt hatt he s ent enci ng hear i ng tr ans cr i pt“cl ear l ys how s ” that A ppel l ant ’ s couns el r ai s ed the appl i cat i on of thi s pr ovi s i on, butthatA ppel l ant rejec ted se v e ra l o p p o rtu n iti e s to tak e a d v a n tag e o f th is p ro v isio n b yre f

u sin g to o ffe r in fo rm a tio n to th e g o v e rn m e n t. 1 T h e d istric t co u rt a lso e n su re d th a t A p p e llan t’s th ird c laim , co n c e rn in g h is i nabi l i tyt o per fec tan appe al due t o i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , w as thor oughl yexami ned. T he magi s tr at e j udge conduc t ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng at w h ich it b e c a m e a p p a re n t th a t th e p lea a g re e m e n t w a s f u llye x p lain e d to A p p e lla n t a n d th a t A p p e lla n t’ s e x p e c ta tio n s o f a p p e a l w e re u nju s tifie d . A ppel l antpr es ent s no evi dence of hi s i nabi l i tyt o under s t and and appr eci at e the cons equenc es of hi s gui l typl ea. M or eover , t he magi s tr at e j udge r ecogni zed that e v e n if a n a p p e a l h a d b e e n p re se rv e d , n o n o n -f riv o lo u s g ro u n d s fo r a p p e a l w o u ld h a v e e x i s t e d g i v e n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s r ej e c t i o n o f Ap p e l l a n t ’ s o th e rt wo a rg u m e n ts . A ft ercar eful l yr evi ew i ng the part i es ’ br i efs , t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i on, th e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e ’ s r e p o r ta n d r e c o mm e n d a t i o n , a n d t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l , we concl ude thatno r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d concl ude thatA ppel l ant ’ s couns el w as ineffe cti v e u n d er Str i ckland . Ac c o r d i n g l y , a s Ap p e l l a n th a s fa i l e d t o s h o w a-4-

den i al of a c on st i tuti on al ri gh tas r equ i red by28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(c) (2) , w e m ust DE NY A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand D I SM I SS the a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge