T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * t he 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 ; nevert hel 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 t he 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. W e c o n s tru e M ajid ’s a p p e lla te filin g s lib e ra lly. See Cum m i ngs v. E vans , 1 1 6 1 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 

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

### S e p t e m b e r18,2006 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 TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. v. M OHAMM E D AB DUL M AJ I D,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6060 (W .D . o f

O k la .) (D . C . N o s. C R -98 -80 -R a n d CI V- 0 5 - 3 1 2 - R)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL, and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antM ohamm ed M aj i d, pr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a 1 C e rtific a te o f

A p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) to a p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is fede r al habea s corpus a p p lic a tio n o n w a iv e r a n d p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lt g ro u n d s . B eca us e M aj i d coul d and s houl d have r ai s ed the i s s ues under l y i ng hi s pet i t i on on2

d ir e c t a p p e a l, w e d e n yh is re q u e s t fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S h is c a s e . I . Backg r ound M aj i d i s a fe der al i nm at e s ervi ng a 57- m onth s ent ence fori nt er s t at e tr avel i n ai d of r acke t eer i ng i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1952( a) ( 3) . M aj i d pl eade d g u iltyp u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t. In th e a g re e m e n t, M ajid w a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l h is c o n v ictio n . W e u p h e ld th is w a iv e r in a n A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r in Un itedS ta tes v . Ma

jid , N o. 04- 6076. D es pi t e thi s w ai ver , M aj i d fi l ed a pe t i t i on forhabea s corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, ar gui ng t hathi s appoi nt ed couns el r ender ed i neffect i ve as s i s t ance i n vi ol at i on of t he Si xt h A m endment . T he pet i t i on and r el at ed mot i ons w er e di s m i s s ed as proced ural l ybarr ed. B ecause the di stri ctcou rtdid not address M aj i d’s r equ est fora C O A i ti s deni ed pur s uantt o T enth C i r cui tR ul e 22. 1( C ) . M aj i d now as ks th is c o u rt fo r a C O A to a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f h is p e titio n . I I . D i s cus s i on W e mayonl yi s s ue a CO A i f M aj i d “has m ade 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) . B eca us e the di s tr i ct cour tdeni ed M aj i d’ s pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , w e mayi s s ue a CO A i f he demonstr at es bot h t hatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtand that juri sts o f re a s o n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w a s c o rr e c t in its p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g .3

Sl ack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ). A s not ed bythe di s t r i ctcourt , pos tconvi ct i on m ot i ons under§ 2255 ar e not a v a ila b le to a d d re s s is s u e s w h ic h s h o u ld h a v e b e e n ra is e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Uni t ed Stat es v. Fr ady , 4 5 6 U .S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 5 (1 9 8 2 ), Uni t ed Stat es v. D ago , 441 F. 3d 1238, 1244 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T hi s rul e appl i es even w her e the defendanthas w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. Fr ady , 456 U . S. at165. A s a r es ul t , w her e a d e fe n d a n t h a s w a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l, an d h a s th e re b yw a iv e d h is o p p o rtu n ity t o r ai s e i s s ues pr es ent ed i n a s ubs equent§ 2255 pet i t i on, t hos e i s s ues s u b s e q u e n tly ra is e d a re p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . Id. Pr ocedur al defa ul tw i l l notbar a defendant ’ s cl ai m s i f he c an ( 1) es t abl i s h caus e exc us i ng the defaul tand ac tual pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om t he err orati s s ue or( 2) s how t hata funda m ent al m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e w ill o c c u r i f

h is c la im is n o t a d d re s s e d . Id. ; Uni t ed Stat es v. C ox , 8 3 F .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). M aj i d ar gues her e, as bel ow , t hathi s pr ocedur al defa ul tw as caus ed byt he i neffect i ve as s i s t ance r ender ed byhi s appoi nt ed fe der al publ i c defender . W hi l e a s how i ng of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el m aycons t i tut e ca us e forpr ocedur al defa ul t , i ti s onl ys uffi ci entt o excus e the defaul ti f the att orney ’ s err orr i s es t o t he le v e l o f c o n s titu tio n a lly d e fic ie n t r e p re s e n ta tio n . R ogers v. Uni t ed Stat es , 91 F. 3d 1388, 1391 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound M aj i d’ s al l egat i ons r egar di ng hi s at t or ney ’ s i neffect i venes s t o be uns ubs t ant i at ed. W e agr ee. M aj i d cont ends t hathi s at t or neycoer ced hi m i nt o s i gni ng hi s pl eaForexampl e, beca us e no docke tnum berw as as s i gned t o hi s char gi ng 2 i ndi ctm ent , M aj i d w oul d have ha d hi s att orneycont end thatt he i ndi ctm entw as n o t le g a lly e x ta n t. 4 agr eementand i nt o l y i ng t o t he di s tr i ctcour tr egar di ng the vol unt arynatur e of that ag ree m en t. A s d o cu m en ted b ythe d istri ct co u rt , thes e a sserti o n s are co n tr ary t o hi s ow n s w orn t es t i m onyatt he pl ea he ar i ng and the l anguage of the agr eement itse lf. M o re o v e r, th is c o u rt e x p licitlyrejec ted th is lin e o f a rg u m e n tatio n in u p h o ld in g M ajid ’s w a iv e r o f a p p e lla te ri g h ts in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. M aj i d al s o m ai nt ai ns t hathi s att or neyfai l ed t o pr oper l yi nves t i gat e and pr epar e hi s cas e fort r i al , fai l ed t o as k foran i nt erpr et er , and fa i l ed t o m ake se v e ra l p lain lyf

riv o lo u s le g a l ar g u m e n ts. T h e se a lleg a tio n s a re e ith e r w h o lly uns uppor t ed byt he r ecor d orl egal l yi ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta cl ai m of i neffect i ve a ss ista n c e . T h e re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t M ajid ’s c o u n se l en g a g e d in a m p le d isco v eryin p rep ara ti o n fo r M aji d ’s ca se. S im il arly , the re co rd a n d M aji d ’s p ro v e n a b ility to re p re s e n t h im s e lf d e m o n s tr a te s h is u n d e rs ta n d in g o f E n g lis h . T hatM aj i d’ s att or neydi d notm ake f r i vol ous ar gum ent s on hi s behal f ca nnot over come t he “s t r ong pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ’ s conductfal l s w i thi n the w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance . ” Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U. S. 668, 689 ( 1984) . T he cl ai m s M aj i d w oul d have ha d hi s att or neyr ai s e had no reas on able probab i l i t y of success. See Nei l lv. G i bs on , 2 7 8 F . 3 d 1 0 4 4 (10 th C ir . 2 2001) ( i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m byhabea s corpus pet i t i onerm us tbe s uppor t ed5

b ys h o w in g th a t o m itte d c la im w o u ld h a v e le d to a d iffe re n t r e s u lt) . M aj i d has m ade no s how i ng of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and has t herefore fai l ed to est abli sh cause ex cusi ng his proced ural defa ult . M aj i d h as al so n o t sh o w n th a t a f

u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e w ill b e th e re su lt o f h is c la im s b e in g p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315, 1324–25 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e th e re fo re fin d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld n o t fin d it debat abl e w hetherM aj i d has m ade a val i d cl ai m of a de ni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , norw oul d t heyfi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n i t s rui ng t hatM aj i d’ s cl ai m s ar e pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e G R A N T M aj i d’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris , D E N Y hi s appl i cat i on fora C O A , D E N Y as m oothi s m ot i on for o rig in a l tran sc rip ts to b e o rd e re d , an d D IS M IS S h is a p p e a l. 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