Opinion ID: 200171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Berthoff's Sixth Amendment Claim

Text: 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an appeal may not be taken from a district court's final order in a § 2255 proceeding without the issuance of a COA. A COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. at § 2253(c)(2). A habeas petitioner who fails to demonstrate that his claims satisfy the substantial showing standard may not appeal the denial of habeas corpus at all. Bui v. DiPaolo, 170 F.3d 232, 236 (1st Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the necessity for a substantial showing extends -7- independently to each and every issue raised by a habeas petitioner. Id. Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and will not be allowed to do service for an appeal. Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354 (1994) (internal citation omitted). The principles of finality, federalism, and comity inform the scope of habeas review. Sanna v. Dipaolo, 265 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633-35 (1993); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 308-10 (1989)). Accordingly, a defendant's failure to raise a claim in a timely manner at trial or on appeal constitutes a procedural default that bars collateral review, unless the defendant can demonstrate cause for the failure and prejudice or actual innocence. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998). In this case, the COA was inappropriately issued because Berthoff procedurally defaulted his Sixth Amendment claim and failed to make a substantial showing that his right to a jury trial was denied. He did not raise that issue at any stage of the proceedings below: neither at trial, nor on direct appeal from his convictions, nor in his § 2255 petition.3 Rather, the district 3 Nor does Berthoff make a developed argument as to cause and prejudice or actual innocence on appeal, other than to contend that the sentencing issue was too novel to be subject to the procedural default doctrine. See Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 15 (1984). In light of this circuit's case law addressing closely related issues, notably United States v. Rodriguez, 162 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 1998), we find this argument unpersuasive. Finally, -8- court issued a COA on the Sixth Amendment issue sua sponte, in the absence of briefing or a hearing. Moreover, the district court's discussion focused on the constitutional infirmities involved in fact bargaining and inappropriately mechanistic downward departures for substantial assistance. Berthoff, 140 F. Supp.2d at 61-67. Yet the court concedes that these problems are not present in Berthoff's situation: there was no evidence of fact bargaining below, id. at 67 n.30, and Berthoff and his co-defendants were thoughtfully sentenced within the Guidelines, id. at 53, 57. We need do nothing more than refer to the district court's own words to emphasize that the constitutional complaints it postulates have little to do with the facts of the present case: [I]n an appropriate case, where the government has engaged in illegal fact bargaining with one defendant, I would not hesitate to hold that a defendant similarly situated in all material respects could take advantage of the fact bargain in order freely to exercise the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This is not such a case. After the most thorough reflection, while I fully admit that were I free to do so I would reduce Berthoff's sentence, I can see no principled way to reach such a result and at the same time remain faithful to the judicial decisions that Berthoff contended in his reply brief that he sufficiently presented the sentencing disparity issue below when he asserted ineffective assistance of counsel, but effectively repudiated this contention at oral argument, conceding that the issues were only tangentially related. -9- properly control analysis here. The best I can do is grant this certificate of appealability. I respectfully urge the Court of Appeals to address these intractable issues with the aid of the broadest array of amici curiae . . . Id. at 71 (emphasis added). Under these circumstances, to decide whether fact bargaining violated the Sixth Amendment not only would contravene the procedural default doctrine but would amount to issuing an unlawful advisory opinion. Cf. United States v. Sabatino, 943 F.2d 94, 96 n.1 (1st Cir. 1991) (Sixth Amendment rights are personal in nature and cannot be asserted vicariously).4 In sum, this case simply is an inappropriate vehicle for the district court's concerns. We acknowledge that the district court raises serious and troubling issues regarding sentencing disparity that merit careful consideration in an appropriate case; as the trial court concedes, however, this is not that case. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the constitutional issue at this time.