FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 13, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15712 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 0 3 - 0 8 0 4 5 - C V - C L S - P WG 0 3 - 0 0 0 4 0 - CR - CL S C O L L I N S I R I S G A S T O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ 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 N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 13, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C ol l i ns I r i s G a s t on, a f

e de r a l pr i s one rs e r vi ng a 135- m onth s e nt e nc e f or c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , appe a l s pr o s e the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 m ot i on t o v ac at e, se tas i de, or corr ec t a s ent ence . T he A nt i t errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (A E D P A ), P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t a t . 1214 ( 1996) , gove rns thi s appe a l be c a us e G a s t on f i l e d hi s m ot i on a f

t e rthe A E D P A ’ s e na c tm e nt . W e gr a nt e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty onl y a s t o “ W he the rappe l l a ntw a s de ni e d e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l w he n c ouns e l f a i l e d t o f i l e a t i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l a f

t e rappe l l a nt a lle g e d ly r e q u e s te d c o u n s e l to d o s o .” In a 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 p roce edi ng , w e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s l egal co n cl u si o n s d e n o v o an d factu al fi n d i n g s fo r cl ear erro r. L yn n v . U n i t ed S t at es, 36 5 F . 3d 12 25 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). W hether c ou nsel i s i neff ec t i ve i s am i xed que s t i on of

l a w a nd f

a c ttha tw e r e vi e w de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e nde r , 290 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . B e c a u s e Ga s t o n i s p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , we l i be r a l l y c ons true hi s pl e a di ngs . T a nne nba um v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 1262, 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). I n R oe v. F l or e s - O r t e ga , 528 U . S . 470, 473- 75, 120 S . C t . 1029, 1033- 34, 1 4 5 L .E d .2 d 9 8 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n s id e r e d a c a s e in w h ic h a s ta te de f e nda ntpl e a de d gui l ty t o m ur de r , butdi d notw a i ve hi s r i ghtt o appe a l , nor3

c o n s e n te d to h is a tto rn e y n o t f ilin g a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld tha tthe t e s ti n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , ap p lie s to d e te r m in e w h e th e rc o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to f

ile a not i ce of appeal . F l ores -O rt ega, 52 8 U . S . at47 7, 12 0 S . C t . at10 34 . U nd er S tr i c kl a nd, a m ova ntde m ons tr a t e s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l by s how i ng:

“ ( 1) tha tc ouns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on f e l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s , a nd ( 2) tha tc ouns e l ’ s de f i c i e ntpe r f

or m a nc e pr e

j udi c e d the defe nd ant . ” F l ores -O rt ega, 52 8 U . S . at47 6-77 , 12 0 S . C t . at10 34 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W i th res pectt o the obj ec t i ve st andard of rea sonabl enes s, the S up re m e C ou rt r e a f f i r m e d tha ta n a tt orne y w ho f a i l s t o f i l e a n appe a l on be ha l f

of a c l i e ntw ho s pe c i f i c a l l y r e que s t s i ta c t s i n a pr of e s s i ona l l y unr e a s onabl e m a nne r . I d. a t477, 12 0 S . C t . at10 35 . T he C ou rthel d that“ coun se l has aconst i tut i on al l y i m po se d duty t o c ons ul tw i th the de f e nda ntabouta n appe a l w he n the r e i s r e a s on t o thi nk e ith e r( 1 ) th a t a r a tio n a l d e f e n d a n t w o u ld w a n t to ap p e a l . . . o r( 2 ) th a t th is p a r tic u la rd e f

e n d a n t r e a s o n ab ly d e m o n s tr a te d to c o u n s e l th a t h e w a s in te r e s te d in appe a l i ng. ” I d. a t480, 120 S . C t . a t1036. W ith r e s p e c t to p r e

ju d ic e , th e F lo r e s - O r te g a C o u r t h e ld th a t p r e ju d ic e is pres um ed w here coun se l fa i l s t o fi l e a n app ea l thatthe defendantw ant ed fi l ed4

be c a us e the de f

e nda nti s de ni e d the oppor tuni ty f ora pr oc e e di ng a ta l l . I d. a t483, 1 2 0 S . C t . at1 0 3 8 . “ [T ] o sh o w p rej u d i ce i n th ese ci rcu m st an ces, a d efen d an tm u st de m ons tr a t e tha tthe r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orc ouns e l ’ s de f

i c i e nt fa i l ure t o con sul tw i th h i m abou tan appeal , he w ou l d h ave t i m el y app ea l ed. ” F l or e s - O r t e ga , 528 U . S . a t484, 120 S . C t . a t1038. T hi s i s true e ve n abs e ntthe defe nd antshow i ng thathe w ou l d h ave had any vi abl e groun ds for a n app ea l . Id. at 477, 120 S . C t . a t1035. T he general rul e of F l ores -O rt ega a l so appl i es even i f the defendanthas si gn ed a l i m i t ed w ai ver of hi s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence . G om ez -D i az v. U ni t ed S t at es , 43 3 F . 3d 78 8, 79 0 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T he defendanti n G om ez -D i az w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o di r e c t l y orc ol l a t e r a l l y appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e unl e s s the s e nt e nc i ng j udge u p w a r d ly d e p a r te d , s e n te n c e d ab o v e th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m , o rs e n te n c e d in vi ol at i on of the l aw apar tfr om the gu i del i nes. Id. W e i nstruct ed the di stri ctcourt t o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng t o d et erm i ne w hether ( 1) G om ez -D i az had request ed th a t h is c o u n s e l f

ile a n ap p e a l, a n d , th e r e f o r e , w h e th e rh is c o u n s e l h a d a d u ty to appeal and, (2) i f not , w hether G om ez -D i az ’ s c ou nsel consul t ed w i th G om ez -D i az a n d f u lf ille d h is c o n s titu tio n a l d u ty to d e te r m in e w h e th e rG o m e z - D ia z w is h e d to appeal . Id. at79 2-93 . W e f urther hel d thateven tho ug h the defendanthad w ai ved

“ m a ny , butnota l l , of

hi s appe l l a t e r i ght s , ” he ha d no duty t o “ i de nt i f y a ny5

a r guabl y m e r i t or i ous gr ounds f orappe a l tha tw oul d f

i tone of the e xc e pt i ons co n t ai n ed i n h i s ap p eal w ai v er. ” Id . at7 9 3 ; see al so M o n t em o i n o v . U n i t ed S t at es, 68 F . 3d 416, 417- 18 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng w he r e a de f e nda ntpl e a ds gui l ty a nd c o u n s e l f a ils to f ile a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l d e s p ite a r e q u e s t to d o s o , th e d e f e n d a n t is ent i t l ed t o an o ut -of- t i m e app ea l of the se nt enci ng i ss ues absentan expres s w ai ver, even w i tho utshow i ng thatany vi abl e groun ds for a n app ea l exi st ). If , af t eran evi dent i ary hea ri ng , a di stri ctcourtfi nd s thata def endantw as d e n i e d th e r i g h tt o ap p e a l , i tmu s tv a c a t e th e j u d g me n t , r e i mp o s e th e s a me s e n te n c e , a n d in f

o r m th e d e f

e n d a n t o f th e r ig h t to ap p e a l a n d th a t h e h a s te n d a y s in w hi c h t o f

i l e a not i c e of

appe a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 225 F . 3d 1198, 1201 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). I n the pr e s e ntc a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notde t e r m i ne w he the rG a s t on re qu es t ed thathi s a tt orney f i l e ano t i ce of appeal . If the di stri ctcourtdet erm i nes a f t e ra n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng tha tG a s t on’ s c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n notf

i l i ng a n o tic e o f ap p e a l, th e n G a s to n w o u ld b e e n title d to p u r s u e a n o u t- o f - tim e ap p e a l. S e e G om e z - D i a z , 433 F . 3d a t793; s e e a l s o P hi l l i ps , 225 F . 3d a t1201. T hi s i s true ev en w h ere, as h ere, a d efen d an tco n tractu al l y w ai v ed th e ri g h tt o ap p eal , b ecau se the m er i t s of a n app ea l ar e nott o b e c on si dere d i n d ec i di ng w hether t o g ra ntan out - of - t i m e appe a l . S e e F l or e s - O r t e ga , 528 U . S . a t477, 120 S . C t . a t1035.I f an out-of -time appe al is ultim ately grante d and def

ense c ounsel believe s that the 1 re c ord s ho ws no meritoriou s b a sis fo r a n a pp e al, c ouns e l ma

y , at th at time , f

ilea motion to withdraw f

rom the ca se pursua

nt to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L .Ed.2d 493 (1967). 6 A cc ordi ng l y, w e vac at e the order denyi ng re l i ef , and i nstructthe di stri ct courtt o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng t o d et erm i ne w hether G as t on ’ s c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve i n n otfi l i ng a not i ce of appeal . If the courtfi nd s thatcoun se l w as 1 i neff ec t i ve then i tshou l d fol l ow the procedures s etforth i n P hi l l i ps, 22 5 F . 3d at 1201. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.