Opinion ID: 4551553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal Request

Text: The district court rejected DeWald’s first argument, finding that DeWald never requested that his counsel file an appeal. We review that factual finding for clear error. See Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 442 (10th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Clark, 596 F. App’x 696, 703 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (“We discern no clear error in the district court’s determination that Clark did not request an appeal.”). A district court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous only “if it is without factual support in the record or if the appellate court, after reviewing all the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Pulliam, 748 F.3d 967, 970 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the record contains a sworn affidavit, signed by DeWald’s counsel, stating that he “did not speak with [DeWald] regarding an appeal[.]” R. vol. 1 at 135. Additionally, DeWald’s October 15, 2018 letter—through which he claims that he requested an appeal—never mentions an appeal. In the letter, DeWald instead requests “a copy of my entire case file” so that he could “examine whether or not [he] possess[ed] any viable ground for relief under inter alia 28 USC § 2255.” Id. at 136. Even under the most generous interpretation, this letter conveys no more than that DeWald was considering whether he wanted to file a collateral challenge, not that he was directing his attorney to file a direct appeal. This conclusion is buttressed by considering the letter’s date: October 15, 2018. The district court had entered judgment on June 14, 9 2018. DeWald’s notice of appeal was due June 28, 2018. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). So even if DeWald’s counsel had received the letter the day it was drafted, the time for a direct appeal would have long passed.3 We reject DeWald’s contention that this untimely letter, which does not mention an appeal, conveyed to his attorney his desire to file a direct appeal. The record supports the district court’s finding that DeWald never requested a direct appeal, so we conclude that the court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. As a result, we rule that DeWald’s counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to heed DeWald’s explicit request for an appeal.