NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 06a0748n. 06 Fi l ed: O ct ober11, 2006 N o. 04- 5982 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
AL L E N ANT HONY K I NG, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t,
v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent
- A ppel l ee. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof K entucky

/ B efore: G U Y , G IL M A N , an d R O G E R S , C i rcu i t Jud ges. P E R C U R I A M. P e tit io n e r A llen A n th o n yK in g a p p e a ls f ro m th e d e n ial o f

h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to v a c a te h is s e n ten c e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . K in g p lea d e d g u iltyto tw o c o u n ts
o f p o s s e s s i o n o f

mo rp h i n e wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. No d ire c t ap p e a l w a s f

iled , alth o u g h th e w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t p re se rv e d h is rig h t b o th to appea l t he appl i cat i on of a c ar eercr i m i nal enhanc ement and to asser tanycl ai m for inef fe ct i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed pet i t i oner ’ s § 2255 m ot i on
w ith o u t an e v id e n tiary h e a rin g b e c a u se h e h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted c a u se f o r h is f a ilu re to f

ile
a d ire c t ap p e a l. T hi s cour tgr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yon t he fol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) w hether
a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e w a s n e c e ss a ryto re so lv e th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r K in g h a d a sk e d h isNo. 04-5982 2

A c o p y o f the o r i g i na l ju dgm e nt w a s ap p ar e nt l y no t av a i l ab l e b e c aus e the o r i g i na l r e c o r ds we re 1 de s tr o y e d i n a

f i r e atthe l o c a l c o urtho us e . Gi v e n the s c o p e o f the c e rt i f i c at e o f a p p e a l ab i l i ty , the un de r l y i ng du e pro cess c laim is not befo re us at this time. for m erat t or neyt o fi l e a di r ectappea l ; ( 2) w hether K i ng w as deni ed t he ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el byhi s at t or ney ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e an a ppeal ; and ( 3) w h etherK i ng’ s cl ai m t hathe
w a s im p ro p e rlyse n ten c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r in v o lv e d a n u n e x c u se d p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt. A fter a r evi ew of the r ecor d and the ar gum ent s pr es ent ed on appe al , w e R EV ER SE and RE M AND forfurt herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. I. K in g w a s in d ic te d o n N o v e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , an d p lea d e d g u iltyp u rsu a n t to a R u le 11( e) ( 1)(B ) pl ea a gr eementon M ar ch 21, 2002. T he governm entagr eed t o r ecomm end a
s ent ence att h e l ow end of the gui del i ne r ange, butdi s agr eementar os e conc erni ng cal cul at i on of the appr opr i at e r ange. T he di s put e ce nt er ed on w h ethe r K ing coul d be
se n ten c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r b a se d o n a n o n -c e rtifie d c o p yo f a ju d g m e n t p u rp o rtin g to p rov e a p ri o r st ate c o n v ict ion
. T h e p lea a g ree m en t w a s m o d if ied to p rov ide th at K ing ’s 1
w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence w ould “n o t ap p lyt o det er m i nat i on of cr i m i nal h is to ry o r c a re e r o f

f e n d e r s ta tu s .” A ts ent enci ng on J anuary30, 2003 , K i ng’ s at t or neyobj ect ed t o t he ca r eeroffe nder adjustm ent. H ow ever, t he di stri ct cou rt ov erruled the object i on and i ncreased K i ng ’s off ense l evel fr om 26 t o 32. T hen w i t h a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yand
a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V I, th e d istric t c o u rt f o u n d th e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e to be 1 51 t o 1 88 m on t hs. K i ng w as sent enced att he b ott om of thatrange t o 1 51 m on t hs’No. 04-5982 3

Ki ngf i l e d a r e que s tf o r atr ans c r i p to f

the s e nt e nc i nghe ar i ngt o us e i n p r e p ar i ngan ant i c i p at e d 2 § 2 25 5 motion , whichwas den ied as premature. A secondmotion for the t r an s c r i pt was deniedbec ause Kinghad sho wn no re as on fo r his fa ilure to f il e a dire ct

a pp ea l. i m pr i s onm ent . D es pi t e the adve r s e fi ndi ng on car eer offe nders t atus , no di r ectappea l w as f iled b yK in g ’s a p p o in ted c o u n se l. A ct i ng pr o s e, K i ng fi l ed thi s § 2 2 5 5 m o ti on i n February2004. T he mot i on and 2 in c o rp o ra ted m e m o ra n d u m a ss e rte d (1 ) th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s im p o se d in v io la ti o n o f h is F if th A m e n d m e n t d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to b e se n ten c e d b a se d o n re liab le a n d a c c u ra te in f o rm a tio n , a n d (2 ) th a t h is atto rn e y ’s f a ilu re to f

ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l d e n ied h im h is S ix th A m endment r i ghtt o eff ect i ve as s ist an ce of couns el
. W i t h r es pectt o t he s econd gr ound, K i ng’ s m emora ndum s peci fi cal l yas s er t ed the fol l ow i ng:

T he Pet i t i oner su bm i t s t hathe w as deni ed ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el bas ed on the factt hathi s cour tappoi nt ed couns el fai l ed t o fi l e a not i ce of appe al i n r egar d t o t he Sect i on 4B 1. 1( C ) enhanc ement t hatcouns el s peci fi cal l ynegot i at ed for and sec ur ed t he ri ght t o appea l i n t he R ul e 11 pl ea a g r e e m e n t , a n d w a s t h e b a s i s o n w h i c h t h e P e t i t i o n e rp l e d g u i l t y.

. . . C o u n se l ev e n tu a lly n e g o tiate d a R u le 1 1 (e )(1 )(B ) p lea a g re e m e n t, w h ich c o n tain e d a sp e c if ic stip u latio n th a t th e P e tit io n e r w o u ld n o t w a iv e h is r i ghtt o appea l t he Sect i on 4B 1. 1( C ) enhanc ement . I tw as couns el ’ s as s ur ance t o t he Pet i t i onert hatt he Sect i on 4B 1. 1( C ) enhanc ement w oul d notpas s m us t er on appea l t hatper s uaded hi m t o pl ead gui l t yt o t he s ent ence t hathe expe ct ed t o be appe al ed and s ubs equent l yr educe d. T h e g o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d e d th a t K in g h a d w a iv e d h is d u e p ro c e ss c laim b yf a ili n g to
r ai s e i ton di r ectappea l and had f ai l ed to p rov ide suffi ci entfac tual bas i s forhi s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. Speci fi cal l y , t he governm entar gued that K ing had not
s t a t e d i n h i s § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n t h a th e d i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e o f a p p e a l i n g w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y af t er t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , o rt h a th e a c tu a l l y a s k e d h i s a t t o r n e y t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l
. OnNo. 04-5982 4

A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t K in g h a d “ n o t sh o w n a n yre a so n f o r h is fai l ur e to fil e a d i r ectappea l on t he s ent enci ng i s s ue r ai s ed her e. ” K i ng’ s pet i t i on w as deni ed, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. O n appeal fro m the deni al of a § 2255 mot i on, w e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal
c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o a n d its f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. R egalado v. U ni t ed Stat es , 334 F
. 3 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 3 -24 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). “A n ev iden ti aryh ea rin g is re q u ir ed u n less ‘th e re co rd concl us i vel y s how s t hat t he pet i t i oneri s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef. ’ ” A r r edondo v. U ni t ed Stat es , 178 F. 3d 778, 782 ( 6t h C i r . 1999) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r efus al t o conduct
a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g is re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id
. Fai l ur e t o fi l e a di r ect appea l r ai s i ng t he car eer offe nder i s s ue r es ul t s i n a pr ocedur al defa ult that m aybe over come bya s how i ng of “c aus e” a nd “pr ej udi ce. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr ady , 4 5 6 U .S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 7 -6 8 (1 9 8 2 ); s ee a l s o B ous l ey v . U

ni t ed Stat es , 523 U
. S. 614, 621 (1998 ). H ere, t he cau se ass ert ed w as coun sel ’s fai l ure to f ile th e n o ti ce of

app eal
. A s a fede r al defe ndant , pet i t i onerw as notr equi r ed t o r ai s e hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el claim o n d ir ec t a p p e a l. Mas s ar o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 538 U
. S. 500, 504 ( 2003)
. A cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of counse l r equi r es pr oof t hatcouns el ’ s per for m ance w as defi ci entand th a t th e d e f

ic ie n c yp re

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668, 687- 88 (19 8 4 ). A n at t or neyw ho di s r egar ds a def endant ’ s s peci fi c i ns t ruct i ons t o fi l e a noti ce of appea l “ac t s i n a m anner t hat i s pr ofes s i onal l y unr eas onabl e” w i t hout r egar d t o w hethert heNo. 04-5982 5

The ques tion in Roew as whether coun sel’s p erformance was deficient for no t filinga notice of 3 appea l when the d efenda

nt ha s no t clearly

conv ey ed h is w ishes one way or the o ther. 52 8 U .S. at 4 77. The Court held

that coun sel ha s “a constitutio nally im posed duty to consu lt with the defend ant about an a ppeal whe n the re is reason to think either (1) that a rational defend ant would want to appea l (for exam ple, becau se th er e ar e no nf

ri v ol ou s gro un ds fo r ap pe al ), or (2 ) th at th is p arti cu lar de fe nd ant r ea so na bl y d emon strate d to coun sel that he was interested in ap pealing .” Id . at 480
. a p p e a l w o u ld h a v e m e ri t. R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 5 2 8 U .S . 4 7 0 , 4 7 7 (2 0 0 0 ); se e a lso L u dw ig
v. U ni t ed Stat es , 162 F.3d 4 5 6 , 4 5 9 ( 6t h C i r . 1998)
. O n t he otherhand, “a de fenda ntw ho
e x p l i c i t l y t e l l s h i s a t t o r n e y not t o f i l e a n a p p e a l p l a i n l y c a n n o t l a t e r c o mpl a i n t hat , by fol l ow i ng hi s i ns t ruct i ons , hi s couns el per for m ed def i ci ent l y . ” R oe , 5 2 8 U .S . at 4 7 7
. W ith 3
r es pect t o t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of Str i ckland , t he C our ti n R oe expl ai ned thatpr ej udi ce i s not det er m i ned fr om t he pr obabi l i t yof s ucce s s on appea l , but by s how i ng t hat couns el ’ s defi ci ent p e rf o rm a n c e c a u s e d th e f

o rf e itu re o f th e p e titio n e r’ s d ir e c t a p p e a l. Id
. at484. K i ng has cert ai nl yal l eged thathe cons ul t ed w i t h hi s at t or ney about w hether t o fi l e an appea l
. T he ques t i on befor e us i s w hetherK i ng s uffi cien tl yal l eged thathe had i ns t ruct ed
c o u n se l to f

ile a n a p p e a l su c h th a t th e re c o rd c a n n o t b e sa id to c o n c lu siv e ly sh o w th a t h e is ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef. K i ng’ s pr o s e pet i t i on does notexpl i ci t l y s t at e t hat he aske d hi s at t or ney t o appea l and t hat he fai l ed t o do s o. K i ng does aver , how ever , t hatt he pl ea ne got i at i ons and
su b se q u e n t g u iltyp lea w e re p re d ica ted o n th e a d v ice o f c o u n se l th a t h e w o u ld b e a b le to
u p se t th e c a re e r crim in a l e n h a n c e m e n t o n d ire c t ap p e a l. T h e p lea a g re e m e n t b o u n d K in g to
a s ent ence att he bot t om of the gui del i ne ra n g e, butt he appr opr i at e r ange w as nots et t l ed. K in g a lleg e s th a t, w ith th e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n s e l, th e p lea a g re e m e n t w a s s p e c if ica lly
m odi fi ed t o pr es er ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l an adve r s e fi ndi ng on t he ca r eeroffe nderi s s ue. I m pl i ci ti n K i ng’ s pet i t i on i s t he cl ai m t hat he i ns t ruct ed couns el t o fi l e an a ppeal i f he w asNo. 04-5982 6

s ent ence d as a car eer offe nder , but t hat couns el fai l ed t o do s o. I f K i ng can pr ove as m uch, h e w ill e sta b lish th a t c o u n se l’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t. B e c a u se re so lu tio n o f th is c laim
r equi r es fur t herfac tual devel opm ent , w e R EV ER SE t he deni al of K i ng’ s § 2255 m ot i on and RE M AND fo r fu rth e r p roc ee d ing s— inclu d ing an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g if t h e d istri ct co u rt deems i tnece s s ary
— cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.