rossetti v. united states, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Rossetti v. United States, 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rossetti-v-united-states-1st-cir-2014 1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1451

STEPHEN ROSSETTI ,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Derege B. Demi ss i e, wi t h whomDemi ssi e & Chur ch, was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

Adi t ya Bamzai , At t or ney, Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce,wi t h whom Carmen M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St ates At t orney, and J oseph F.Pal mer , At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 9, 2014

*Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on



KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. St ephen Rosset t i was convi ct ed

on f eder al cr i mi nal char ges ar i si ng f r om a pl ot t o r ob an ar mor ed

car depot i n Eat on, Massachuset t s. Havi ng exhaust ed hi s di r ect

appeal s, Rosset t i now seeks col l at er al r evi ew on a pet i t i on f or a

wr i t of habeas corpus, ar gui ng t hat he was deni ed hi s Si xth

Amendment r i ght t o counsel and that t he di st r i ct cour t wr ongl y

r ef used t o modi f y hi s sent ence af t er a st at e cour t vacat ed a pr i or

st at e convi ct i on t hat had been r el i ed upon t o i ncr ease hi s f eder al

sent ence. We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Rosset t i ' s

pet i t i on.

I. Background

I n l at e 1998, Carmel l o Mer l i no and Anthony Romano f ormed

a pl an t o r ob an armored car depot i n Eat on, Massachuset t s. 1

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Mer l i no r ecr ui t ed t wo ot her men, Davi d Tur ner

and hi s f r i end Rosset t i . As i t t ur ned out , Romano was an FBI

i nf ormant who t ape- r ecorded t he meet i ngs of t he conspi r ators t hat

he at t ended. The conver sat i ons recorded on t hose t apes pai nt

Rosset t i as an ent husi ast i c par t i ci pant i n t he r obber y vent ur e. I n

ei ght een conver sat i ons r ecorded by Romano, Rosset t i pr ovi ded

det ai l ed advi ce about how t o conduct t he r obber y. He expl ai ned how

t o secur e masks wi t hout pul l i ng out hai r t hat coul d be used t o

i dent i f y t he conspi r at or s, expl ai ned how t o t i e t he depot ' s guar ds

1 Unl ess ot her wi se not ed, t he backgr ound f act s set f or t h her ear e not di sput ed f or pur poses of t hi s appeal .

-2-



t o a pol e so t hat t hey woul d choke i f t hey t r i ed t o move, advi sed

t hat t he guar ds woul d r esi st vi ol ent l y, and suggest ed a way f or t he

conspi r at or s t o remove vi deo sur vei l l ance tapes wi t hout maki ng

cl ear t hat t he r obber y was an i nsi de j ob. Rosset t i al so pr omi sed

t o pr ovi de guns, pol i ce scanner s, wal ki e- t al ki es, body ar mor , and

a gr enade, boast i ng t hat he had "al l t he hardware" needed f or t he

r obber y. Rosset t i sai d t hat , dur i ng t he r obber y, he woul d be

"r eady at t he door wat chi ng f or anyone t o come . . . [ c] ause i f

t hey come i n I ' mt aki ng t hemdown. " Fi nal l y, he asked t o dr i ve one

of t he get away car s, sayi ng t hat he woul d " l i ke t o dr i ve one of

t hem [ vehi cl es] i n case I got t a . . . smash guys out of t he way or

whatever . "

On Febr uary 6, 1999, t he conspi r ators met at a garage t o

f i nal i ze det ai l s f or t he r obber y, whi ch was pl anned f or t he next

day. Romano showed t he ot her s a st ol en mi ni van t o be used i n t he

r obbery, and Rosset t i conf i r med t hat he woul d br i ng weapons and

other equi pment f or t he hei st . The conspi r ators pl anned t o meet

agai n at t he gar age t he next mor ni ng. The FBI , i n t ur n, pl anned t o

ar r est t hem when t hey ar r i ved.

At t he appoi nt ed hour t he next morni ng, Rosset t i dr ove

wi t h Tur ner i n Rosset t i ' s car t owar d t he gar age. FBI agent s

t est i f i ed t hat Rosset t i ci r cl ed t he meet i ng poi nt i n a "count er -

sur vei l l ance manner . " I nst ead of st oppi ng at t he gar age, Rosset t i

event ual l y dr ove t o a parki ng l ot wher e Tur ner ' s car was par ked.

-3-



Ther e, t hey t r ansf er r ed masks, gl oves, weapons, bul l et proof vest s,

and wal ki e- t al ki es to Tur ner ' s car . Rosset t i and Tur ner t hen dr ove

back t o t he garage, agai n appear i ng t o check out t he area. At t hat

poi nt , t hey dr ove of f and, af t er a br i ef chase, wer e st opped and

ar r est ed. The FBI agent s ret r i eved f our duf f l e bags and f our ski

masks f r om t he gar age, and t he ot her equi pment f r om Tur ner ' s car .

Rosset t i was event ual l y convi ct ed on conspi r acy and

at t empt t o af f ect commer ce by robber y i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

§ 1951, car r yi ng a gr enade and f i r ear ms i n r el at i on t o a cr i me of

vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 924( c) , and bei ng a f el on i n

possessi on of a gr enade and f i r ear ms i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

§ 922( g) ( 1) . I n convi ct i ng Rosset t i , t he j ur y r ej ect ed hi s

def enses t hat Romano ent r apped Mer l i no and t her eby "vi car i ousl y

ent r apped" Rosset t i , and t hat Rosset t i wi t hdr ew f r om t he r obber y

pl an bef ore he was ar r est ed.

Af t er hi s convi ct i on, Rosset t i was sent enced i n

December 2002 t o 622 mont hs i n pr i son. I n August 2006, we vacat ed

t hat sent ence i n l i ght of Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220

( 2005) . On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t , i n August 2007, r esent enced

Rosset t i t o 622 mont hs. We af f i r med t hat sent ence i n Oct ober 2008.

Rosset t i ' s pet i t i on f or cer t i or ar i was deni ed i n J anuar y 2009.

Rosset t i v. Uni t ed St at es, 555 U. S. 1158 ( 2009) . Meanwhi l e, i n

August 2008, Rosset t i f i l ed a mot i on i n Massachuset t s st at e cour t

f or a new t r i al on a pr i or st at e convi ct i on. I n J anuar y 2010,

-4-



Rosset t i f i l ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus pur suant t o

28 U. S. C. § 2255, ar gui ng t hat he r ecei ved i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

of counsel i n hi s f eder al t r i al , and shoul d t her ef or e be r et r i ed.

Af t er t he st at e cour t vacat ed hi s pr i or convi ct i on i n Febr uar y

2011, he amended hi s sect i on 2255 pet i t i on t o add an argument t hat

t he vacat ur of hi s pr i or st at e cour t convi ct i on ent i t l ed hi mt o r e-

sent enci ng on count s f i ve and si x of hi s convi ct i on. The di st r i ct

j udge t hereaf t er deni ed hi s pet i t i on but grant ed hi m a cer t i f i cat e

of appeal abi l i t y on t he sent enci ng i ssue. On appeal , we al l owed

hi s mot i on t o expand the cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y t o encompass

bot h i ssues.

II. Analysis

A. Sixth Amendment Claims

Rosset t i chal l enges hi s counsel ' s conduct at hi s t r i al on

t hr ee mai n gr ounds, ar gui ng t hat counsel : ( 1) wr ongl y det er r ed hi m

f rom t est i f yi ng by i ncorr ect l y advi s i ng hi m t hat , i f he t est i f i ed

i n hi s own def ense, hi s t est i mony woul d under cut counsel ' s abi l i t y

t o suggest t o t he j ur y t hat Rosset t i di d not go al l t he way t o t he

garage as pl anned because he was wi t hdr awi ng f r om t he conspi r acy;

( 2) f ai l ed t o i mpeach one of hi s own wi t nesses and t o pr ocur e

exper t t est i mony concer ni ng a cel l phone cal l r el evant t o a

government t heor y f or why he may not have st opped at t he gar age t he

mor ni ng of t he ar r est ; and ( 3) had a conf l i ct of i nt er est t hat

deni ed Rosset t i hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght s. The di st r i ct cour t

-5-



r ej ect ed t hese ar gument s, each of whi ch Rosset t i pr oper l y

pr eser ved, 2 and so "we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal

det er mi nat i ons de novo and t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear

er r or . " Par sl ey v. Uni t ed St at es, 604 F. 3d 667, 671 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) .

1. Counsel's advice not to testify

Rosset t i ' s cl ai m t hat he suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul t

of err oneous advi ce by counsel cent er s on hi s def ense t hat he

wi t hdr ew f r omt he conspi r acy at t he l ast moment bef ore t he abort ed

r obber y. Rosset t i cl ai ms t hat hi s counsel t ol d hi m t hat hi s

t est i mony woul d under cut counsel ' s abi l i t y t o ar gue wi t hdr awal , and

f or t hat r eason Rosset t i opt ed not t o t est i f y. He ar gues now t hat

t hat advi ce was wr ong, and t hat because he r ef r ai ned f r om

t est i f yi ng, he l ost a chance t o suppor t hi s wi t hdr awal def ense, and

other wi se t o enhance hi s case.

To prove such a cl ai m based on t he f ai l i ngs of def ense

counsel , Rosset t i must demonst r at e bot h: " ( 1) t hat ' counsel ' s

per f ormance was def i ci ent , ' meani ng t hat ' counsel made er r ors so

ser i ous t hat counsel was not f unct i oni ng as the "counsel "

guarant eed t he def endant by the Si xt h Amendment ' ; and ( 2) ' t hat t he

2 Rosset t i di d not r ai se t hese ar gument s i n hi s di r ect appeal ,but "[ a] def endant can asser t i nef f ect i ve- assi st ance cl ai ms f or t hef i r st t i me i n a col l at er al mot i on made under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 and,i n f act , t hat i s t he pr ef er r ed pr ocedur e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Huar d,342 F. App' x 640, 642 ( unpubl i shed) ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( ci t i ngMassaro v. Uni t ed St ates, 538 U. S. 500, 504- 05, 509 ( 2003) ) .

-6-



def i ci ent per f or mance pr ej udi ced t he def ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Val er i o, 676 F. 3d 237, 246 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng St r i ckl and v.

Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687 ( 1984) ) . I n assessi ng t he adequacy

of appoi nt ed counsel , we " i ndul ge a st r ong pr esumpt i on t hat

counsel ' s conduct f al l s wi t hi n t he wi de r ange of r easonabl e

pr of essi onal assi st ance, " see St r i ckl and, 466 U. S. at 689, f i ndi ng

def i ci ency onl y "wher e, gi ven the f act s known [ t o counsel ] at t he

t i me, counsel ' s choi ce was so pat ent l y unr easonabl e that no

competent at t orney woul d have made i t . " Kni ght v. Spencer , 447

F. 3d 6, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

And, t o est abl i sh pr ej udi ce, a def endant must demonst r at e "a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or counsel ' s unpr of essi onal

er r or s, t he r esul t of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . "

St r i ckl and, 466 U. S. at 694. Thi s revi ew pr esent s "mi xed quest i ons

of l aw and f act " i n whi ch f actual quest i ons predomi nate and we

t her ef or e r evi ew l ar gel y f or cl ear er r or . See Tur ner v. Uni t ed

St at es, 699 F. 3d 578, 584 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . 3 We begi n our r evi ew by

summar i zi ng t he t est i mony t hat Rosset t i says he woul d have gi ven.

Fi r st , Rosset t i says t hat he onl y par t i ci pat ed i n t he

conspi r acy out of f ear t hat Mer l i no woul d ki l l hi m i f he di d not

par t i ci pat e, and t hat hi s det ai l ed advi ce t o t he ot her par t i ci pant s

i n t he conspi r acy about how t o conduct t he r obber y was r eal l y an

3 The di st r i ct j udge who hear d Rosset t i ' s pet i t i on al sopr esi ded over hi s t r i al and so was i n a good posi t i on t o assessRosset t i ' s cl ai ms.

-7-



unsuccessf ul pl oy t o di ssuade t hem f r om conducti ng i t by

demonstr at i ng i t s di f f i cul t i es.

Second, Rosset t i st at es t hat af t er t he meet i ng of t he

conspi r at ors on t he eve of t he pl anned r obber y he l earned t hat t wo

of t hem wer e her oi n addi ct s, and t hat he t hen deci ded t o wi t hdr aw

f r om t he conspi r acy because of hi s " st r ong aver si on t o her oi n

addi ct s" who "can' t be t r ust ed. " He cl ai ms t hat he communi cated

t hi s deci si on t o Tur ner , who passed al ong t he news t o Mer l i no, who,

despi t e Rosset t i ' s pr of essed f ear s, event ual l y t ook t he news wel l ,

and, i nst ead of ki l l i ng Rosset t i , agr eed t o Rosset t i ' s r equest f or

a f ace- t o- f ace meet i ng t he next day.

Thi r d, Rosset t i cl ai ms he vi si t ed hi s mot her ' s house t o

deal wi t h an el ect r i cal pr obl em af t er t el l i ng Tur ner of hi s

wi t hdr awal . Whi l e he was there he says he t ol d her t hat he had

backed out of a busi ness deal .

Fi nal l y, he says t hat t he next morni ng when t he FBI

observed hi m ci r cl i ng t he ar ea of t he gar age, he cl ai ms he was

act ual l y sear chi ng f or t he mi ni van of whi ch he had agr eed t o hel p

Mer l i no di spose. Havi ng f ai l ed t o f i nd t he mi ni van, he t hen

proceeded t owar d a rest aur ant wher e he had agr eed t o meet Mer l i no,

coi nci dent al l y agai n passi ng t he gar age on hi s way t her e.

Bei ng f ami l i ar wi t h t he ent i r e r ecor d, t he di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat t hi s wi t hdr awal cl ai mwas "chi mer i cal . " Rosset t i v.

Uni t ed St at es, CI V. A. 10- 10151- RGS, 2012 WL 37177, at *4 ( D. Mass.

-8-



J an. 9, 2012) . We agree. The not i on t hat t hi s enthusi ast i c and

seasoned conspi r at or who cl ai ms t o have been f ear f ul of hi s

col l eagues wi t hdr ew t he ni ght bef ore t he r obber y and t hen

never t hel ess showed up at t he appoi nt ed si t e and t i me carr yi ng ( as

pr omi sed) weapons, masks, gl oves and other t ool s f or t he hei st

makes no sense at al l . Rosset t i ' s ar gument t hat he was si mpl y on

hi s way ( at t hat pr eci se t i me) t o di spose of t he mi ni van i s i t sel f

a har d sel l . Mor e i mpor t ant l y, as Rosset t i ' s t r i al counsel

r ecogni zed, t o di spose of t he st ol en mi ni van was t o hel p t he

conspi r at or s, not t o abandon t hem t o t hei r own devi ces. I ndeed,

Rosset t i ' s af f i davi t acknowl edges t hat because the mi ni van' s

i gni t i on swi t ch was mi ssi ng and " t he st eer i ng wheel col umn housi ng

was br oken wi t h many pi eces mi ssi ng" t he mi ni van mi ght have

hi nder ed successf ul execut i on of t he r obber y because " i f i t was

seen by an out si der t her e was a hi gh r i sk t hat t hey woul d t hi nk t he

mi ni van was st ol en. "

Because Rosset t i does not di sput e on appeal t hat he

j oi ned t he conspi r acy, " t he l aw pr esumes t hat t he conspi r acy

cont i nued, and t hat he cont i nued t o par t i ci pat e, unl ess he makes

' an af f i r mat i ve showi ng' t hat . . . he wi t hdr ew f r om i t . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mangual - Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d 411, 422 (1st Ci r . 2009)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ) .

To succeed at a wi t hdr awal def ense Rosset t i woul d have had t o

demonst r at e t hat he "act [ ed] af f i r mat i vel y ei t her t o def eat or

-9-



di savow t he pur poses of t he conspi r acy" whi ch he coul d have done

ei t her by maki ng "a f ul l conf essi on t o aut hor i t i es, " whi ch he does

not cont end he di d, or "communi cat i [ ng] . . . t o hi s

co- conspi r at or s t hat he ha[ d] abandoned t he ent er pr i se and i t s

goal s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ci r esi , 697 F. 3d 19, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I t seems qui t e

r easonabl e t o t hi nk t hat t est i mony t hat he was hel pi ng hi s f el l ow

conspi r at or s di spose of a st ol en vehi cl e, t he pr esence of whi ch

mi ght cause suspi ci on, woul d have f orecl osed any at t empt by counsel

t o ar gue t hat t he f ai l ur e t o pul l i nt o t he gar age evi denced

wi t hdr awal f r omt he conspi r acy. Nor woul d evi dence f r omhi s mot her

t hat he sai d he was backi ng out of a busi ness deal have est abl i shed

t he r el evant di savowal , even i f bel i eved, i n vi ew of Rosset t i ' s

act ual conduct . 4

I n shor t , t aki ng t he st and t o spi n such a f anci f ul yar n

woul d not i n our vi ew have cr eat ed a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat

t he j ur y woul d buy i t . I ndeed ( and per haps t hi s i s what def ense

counsel had i n mi nd) , such t est i mony coul d have harmed Rosset t i ' s

st andi ng bef or e t he j ur y. Mor eover , by t est i f yi ng, Rosset t i woul d

have opened hi msel f up to cross- exami nat i on about hi s cr i mi nal

hi st or y and ever y det ai l of hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he r obber y.

4 I t al so f ol l ows f r omt hi s t hat , once Rosset t i deci ded not t ot est i f y, t r i al counsel was not i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o askRosset t i ' s mot her about Rosset t i ' s comment when she test i f i edbecause her answer , as Rosset t i concedes, woul d have beeni nadmi ssi bl e hear say.

-10-



Rosset t i al t er nat i vel y ar gues t hat hi s t est i mony woul d

have suppor t ed hi s ent r apment def ense. Once a def endant

demonst r at es t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o an ent r apment i nst r uct i on, t he

gover nment may def eat t hat def ense by "prov[ i ng] beyond a

r easonabl e doubt ei t her t hat t here was no undue government pr essure

or t r i cker y or t hat t he def endant was pr edi sposed. " Uni t ed St at es

v. LaFreni er e, 236 F. 3d 41, 44- 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Rosset t i ar gues

t hat hi s t est i mony woul d have been r el evant on each prong. He

woul d have t est i f i ed that Mer l i no, wi t h t he gover nment ' s knowl edge,

coer ced hi mt o j oi n t he conspi r acy once he knew of i t . And he says

he woul d have demonst r at ed he was not predi sposed t o commi t t he

r obber y by t est i f yi ng t hat he had not commi t t ed any cr i mes si nce

t he 1980s and was " l i vi ng a l aw- abi di ng, addi ct i on f r ee, and f ami l y

or i ent ed l i f e. " 5

Bot h ar gument s f ai l t o f i t t he evi dence i n a way t hat

woul d have made a di f f er ent r esul t r easonabl y pr obabl e. The

r ecor di ngs of Mer l i no consi st ent l y bel i ed any such appr oach, much

5 Fact or s whi ch may be consi der ed when det ermi ni ng whet hersomeone was pr edi sposed to commi t a cr i me i ncl ude:

( 1) t he char act er or r eput at i on of t he def endant ; ( 2)whet her t he i ni t i al suggest i on of cr i mi nal act i vi t y wasmade by the Government ; ( 3) whether t he def endant was

engaged i n t he cr i mi nal act i vi t y f or pr of i t ; ( 4) whet hert he def endant showed r el uct ance t o commi t t he of f ense,whi ch was overcome by t he government al per suasi on; and( 5) t he nat ur e of t he i nducement or per suasi on of f er ed byt he Gover nment .

Uni t ed St at es v. Gamache, 156 F. 3d 1, 9- 10 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

-11-



l ess one known t o t he government . As we sai d i n connect i on wi t h

Turner ' s appeal , "Mer l i no made i t cl ear t hat he was maki ng an of f er

t o par t i ci pat e whi ch Tur ner coul d r eadi l y decl i ne. Ther e was no

hi nt of t hr eat s or any ot her undue pr essur e- - si mpl y t he oppor t uni t y

f or a bi g scor e. " Tur ner , 501 F. 3d at 71. Rosset t i ' s at t empt t o

sel l a st or y t hat Mer l i no–"of f t ape onl y"- - deal t di f f er ent l y wi t h

hi m f aced t he f ur t her pr obl em t hat t he numer ous t apes t hat di d

exi st evi dence t hat t he gang had an ent husi ast i c par t i ci pant i n

Rosset t i . Hi s cl ai m t hat he was act i ng i n an ef f or t t o event ual l y

convi nce ever yone t hat t he robber y was t oo hard si mpl y does not f i t

ei t her t he scr i pt he was wr i t i ng or t he f act t hat he was suppl yi ng

i mpor t ant r esour ces f or accompl i shi ng t he r obber y. As f or t he

mat t er of pr edi sposi t i on, t he pr i or r ecor d of a r obber y convi ct i on,

even t hough dat ed, combi ned wi t h the t ape recor di ngs and t he act s

on t he mor ni ng of t he pl anned robber y made a l ong shot out of any

ef f or t t o convi nce a j ur y that he had no pr edi sposi t i on t o commi t

t he cr i me. The wi t hdr awal st ory Rosset t i now says he want ed t o

t el l , mor eover , di r ect l y under cut s hi s cl ai mt hat he was so f ear f ul

of Mer l i no that he f el t compel l ed t o commi t t he cr i me.

Last l y, Rosset t i seems t o ar gue t hat because counsel ' s

al l egedl y er r oneous advi ce caused hi m t o sur r ender hi s r i ght t o

t est i f y, he mi ght st i l l pr evai l even i f he cannot sat i sf y

St r i ckl and' s r equi r ement t hat any er r or have been r easonabl y l i kel y

t o account f or t he ver di ct . None of our aut hor i t y suppor t s t hi s

-12-



cl ai m. See Pal mer v. Hendr i cks, 592 F. 3d 386, 397 ( 3d Ci r . 2010)

( " [ E] ver y aut hor i t y we are aware of t hat has addr essed t he mat t er

of counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o advi se a cl i ent of t he r i ght t o t est i f y has

done so under St r i ckl and' s t wo- pr ong f r amework. " ) ; Owens v. Uni t ed

St at es, 483 F. 3d 48, 57–59 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( appl yi ng St r i ckl and

wher e counsel al l egedl y f ai l ed t o i nf or mt he def endant of hi s r i ght

t o t est i f y) ; Cannon v. Mul l i n, 383 F. 3d 1152, 1170 ( 10t h Ci r . 2004)

( "Ot her cour t s al so t r eat [ r i ght t o t est i f y] cl ai ms as i nef f ecti ve

assi st ance cl ai ms. . . . We agr ee t hat Mr . Cannon' s cl ai m i s best

t r eat ed as an i nef f ect i ve- assi st ance- of - counsel cl ai m and anal yze

i t as such. " ) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Teague, 953 F. 2d 1525, 1534

( 11t h Ci r . 1992) ( en banc) ) .

Fi nal l y, we do concede t hat t he l ogi c of t he f or egoi ng

act ual l y hel ps Rosset t i ' s ar gument i n one sense: t he pal pabl e

weakness of t he wi t hdr awal and ent r apment def enses undercut t he

not i on t hat pr eser vi ng t hose def enses was a r eason not t o t est i f y.

Whi l e we never t hel ess t end t o see t he wi sdom i n Rosset t i ' s not

t est i f yi ng gi ven t he cr oss- exam he woul d have f aced based on hi s

r ecord and the t apes, we need not def end counsel ' s advi ce i n or der

t o r ej ect Rosset t i ' s St r i ckl and ar gument . Si mpl y put , t he pr oposed

t est i mony woul d have f al l en f ar shor t of br eat hi ng enough pl ausi bl e

l i f e i nt o t hose def enses t o have creat ed a r easonabl e possi bi l i t y

t hat t hey woul d have succeeded. Rosset t i ' s ar gument r egardi ng t he

advi ce not t o t est i f y t her ef or e f ai l s.

-13-



2. The cell phone evidence

Rosset t i next ar gues t hat hi s counsel wr ongl y f ai l ed t o

i mpeach Rosset t i ' s own wi t ness when she gave er r oneous t est i mony

t hat was act ual l y f avor abl e t o Rosset t i ' s t heor y about hi s

mot i vat i on on t he day of hi s ar r est . When ar r est ed, Rosset t i was

car r yi ng a cel l phone t hat t he gover nment suggest ed at t r i al he

coul d have used t o cal l hi s co- conspi r at or s. Such a cal l coul d

expl ai n why he di d not go to t he gar age wher e he had agreed t o meet

t hem but i nst ead sur vei l l ed and cont i nued past i t . At t r i al ,

Rosset t i cal l ed a wi t ness who t est i f i ed t hat t he company t hat

empl oyed Rosset t i , and t hat pai d f or t he phone, was charged f or no

cal l s on Rosset t i ' s phone t hat mor ni ng, t her eby count er act i ng t he

government ' s t heor y.

The wi t ness al so t est i f i ed, er r oneousl y accor di ng t o

Rosset t i , t hat t he company woul d have been bi l l ed f or a cal l even

i f Rosset t i had cal l ed someone el se but t he cal l had not been

answer ed. The j ur y, Rosset t i cl ai ms, "knew f r om t hei r col l ect i ve

common sense t hat Rosset t i was conveyi ng er r oneous i nf ormat i on

r egar di ng cel l ul ar bi l l i ng pr act i ces and, hence, f ound Rosset t i ' s

def ense l ess credi bl e. " I f cel l ul ar phone bi l l i ng pr act i ces wer e

such common knowl edge, however , i t seems unl i kel y t hat t he

gover nment at t or ney, Rosset t i , hi s counsel , and t he wi t ness woul d

al l have f ai l ed t o not i ce t he wi t ness' s mi st ake. Mor eover , what

Rosset t i cl ai ms was a mi st ake act ual l y benef i t t ed Rosset t i by

-14-



negat i ng any suggest i on t hat he even t r i ed t o cal l hi s co-

conspi r at or s. Thi s mi st ake was unchal l enged on cr oss or i n cl osi ng

by t he pr osecut or , and one can onl y i magi ne what Rosset t i woul d

have sai d had hi s counsel f l agged i t . I n shor t , Rosset t i has not

come cl ose t o demonst r at i ng t hat hi s counsel was i nef f ect i ve by

f ai l i ng t o i mpeach hi s own wi t ness.

Al t er nat i vel y, Rosset t i ar gues t hat hi s t r i al counsel

shoul d have r et ai ned an exper t who mi ght have been abl e t o

ascer t ai n t hat t he phone was never used t he morni ng of t he ar r est ,

and t hat t he FBI may have t amper ed wi t h i t . And Rosset t i compl ai ns

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have al l owed hi m t o do di scover y to

expl or e t hi s t heory. The si mpl e answer i s t hat whet her Rosset t i

( who of t en advi sed hi s f el l ows on t he need t o be car ef ul ) l ear ned

by a phone cal l on t he morni ng of t he pl anned r obbery t hat

somet hi ng was ami ss, or i nst ead suspect ed t her e was a pr obl em f or

other r easons, was not i mport ant t o t he gover nment ' s case. And, as

we have expl ai ned, Rosset t i ' s act ual undi sput ed conduct r ender ed

hi s wi t hdr awal def ense t oo f ar f et ched t o ser ve as t he basi s f or

showi ng a causal connect i on bet ween counsel ' s al l eged f ai l ur es and

pr ej udi ce t o Rosset t i .

3. Counsel's purported conflict of interest

Rosset t i ' s next ar gument i s even more convol ut ed. He

specul at es t hat t he FBI want ed t o ent r ap hi m i n or der t o gai n

l ever age over hi s uncl e, sai d by Rosset t i t o be a per son of

-15-



i nt er est i n t he i nvest i gat i on of t he t hef t of ar t wor ks f r om t he

Gardner Museum. To uncover t hi s mot i ve, Rosset t i want ed hi s t r i al

counsel t o i nt er vi ew and cal l as a wi t ness a suspect ed FBI

i nf ormant named Ri char d Chi cof sky who, Rosset t i suspect ed, mi ght

suppl y or poi nt t o evi dence support i ng the hypothesi zed ent r apment

mot i ve. Rosset t i ' s t r i al counsel , says Rosset t i , f ai l ed t o do t hi s

because, accor di ng t o Rosset t i , counsel had a busi ness r el at i onshi p

wi t h Chi cof sky ( a deal t o spl i t r eward money of f er ed by t he Gardner

Museum) .

The si mpl e answer t o t hi s ar gument i s t hat , as we

obser ved i n deci di ng t he appeal f r omTur ner ' s convi ct i on, t he FBI ' s

possi bl e mot i ve t o ent r ap a person i s of no moment i n a case such

as t hi s one wher e t her e i s predi sposi t i on and no evi dence of

i mpr oper i nducement . Uni t ed St ates v. Tur ner , 501 F. 3d 59, 74 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) . Ther ef or e, even i f t r i al counsel had a conf l i ct t hat

caused hi m not t o pur sue t he Gardner Museum mot i ve f or ent r apment

t heor y, t he " f ai l ur e" t o pur sue a def ense that coul d not have

succeeded coul d have caused no pr ej udi ce. Addi ng bel t - t o-

suspender s, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat "t her e was no l i kel i hood

t hat Chi cof sky woul d have t est i f i ed" because, among other r easons,

when cal l ed i n pr oceedi ngs r el at ed t o Tur ner ' s convi ct i on, he

i nvoked hi s Fi f t h Amendment r i ght not t o t est i f y. See Rosset t i ,

2012 WL 37177, at *6.

-16-



I n sum, we cannot say that t her e i s a r easonabl e

pr obabi l i t y t hat t he per cei ved shor t comi ngs of Rosset t i ' s counsel

- - ei t her i ndi vi dual l y or cumul at i vel y - - af f ected t he r esul t i n

t hi s case. 6 As al r eady di scussed, Rosset t i ' s wi t hdr awal t heor y i s

i mpl ausi bl e, and so t oo i s t he not i on t hat any of t he t act i cs

Rosset t i now says hi s counsel shoul d have adopt ed woul d have

st r engt hened hi s def ense.

B. Rossetti's Challenge to his Sentence

Rosset t i seeks t o modi f y hi s sent ence based on hi s

successf ul vacat ur of a pr i or st at e convi ct i on f or br eaki ng and

ent er i ng. That st at e convi ct i on was one of t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons

t he di st r i ct cour t consi der ed when cal cul at i ng Rosset t i ' s sent ence.

See Rosset t i , 2012 WL 37177, at *6. " [ A] def endant gi ven a

sent ence enhanced f or a pr i or convi ct i on i s ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on

i f t he ear l i er convi ct i on i s vacat ed, " so l ong as he seeks r e-

sent enci ng i n a t i mel y manner . J ohnson v. Uni t ed St ates, 544 U. S.

6 Si mi l ar l y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n denyi ngRosset t i an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on hi s i nef f ect i ve assi st ancecl ai ms. The di st r i ct cour t assumed t hat Rosset t i woul d havet est i f i ed as he cl ai med, and f ound t hat i t "woul d have addednot hi ng by way of suppor t f or [ hi s] wi t hdr awal t heor y, " whi ch i nany event was a "chi mer i cal f ant asy. " Rosset t i , 2012 WL 37177, at*4. As f or t he conf l i ct of i nt er est al l egat i on, t he di st r i ct cour tf ound t hat Chi cof sky "had not hi ng t o cont r i but e t o Rosset t i ' s

def ense. " I d. at *6. See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 929 F. 2d747, 749- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( st at i ng t hat "a [ sect i on 2255]pet i t i on can be di smi ssed wi t hout a[ n] [ evi dent i ar y] hear i ng i f t hepet i t i oner ' s al l egat i ons . . . ' ar e cont r adi cted by t he r ecor d,i nher ent l y i ncredi bl e, or concl usi ons r at her t han stat ement s of f act ' ") ( quot i ng Dzi ur got v. Lut her , 897 F. 2d 1222, 1225 ( 1st Ci r .1990) ) .

-17-



295, 303 ( 2005) ; see al so Dani el s v. Uni t ed St at es, 532 U. S. 374,

382 ( 2001) ( "I f [ a] chal l enge t o [ an] under l yi ng convi ct i on i s

successf ul , t he def endant may t hen appl y f or r eopeni ng of hi s

f eder al sent ence. ") . At al l t i mes r el evant t o t hi s opi ni on, t he

t i mel i ness of Rosset t i ' s pet i t i on was gover ned by 28 U. S. C. §

2255( f ) whi ch now ( i n mater i al l y unchanged st r uct ur e) r eads as

f ol l ows:

( f ) A 1- year per i od of l i mi t at i on shal l appl y t o a mot i onunder t hi s sect i on. The l i mi t at i on per i od shal l r un f r omt he l at est of - -

( 1) t he dat e on whi ch t he j udgment of convi ct i on becomesf i nal ;

( 2) t he dat e on whi ch t he i mpedi ment t o maki ng a mot i oncr eat ed by gover nment al act i on i n vi ol at i on of t heConst i t ut i on or l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es i s r emoved, i f t he movant was pr evented f r om maki ng a mot i on by suchgovernment al act i on;

( 3) t he dat e on whi ch t he r i ght asser t ed was i ni t i al l yr ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t , i f t hat r i ght has beennewl y r ecogni zed by t he Supreme Cour t and mader et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e t o cases on col l at er al r evi ew;or

( 4) t he dat e on whi ch t he f act s suppor t i ng t he cl ai m orcl ai ms present ed coul d have been di scover ed t hr ough t heexer ci se of due di l i gence.

Rosset t i ' s j udgment of convi ct i on i n hi s f eder al case

became f i nal on J anuar y 26, 2009, t he day on whi ch hi s pet i t i on f or

cer t i or ar i was deni ed. I n r e Smi t h, 436 F. 3d 9, 10 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) . Because Rosset t i ' s st at e cour t convi ct i on was vacat ed i n

Febr uary 2011, he di d not seek t o amend hi s habeas pet i t i on t o add

an argument t hat hi s sent ence shoul d t her ef ore be modi f i ed unt i l

-18-



Apr i l 2011, so he cannot r el y on § 2255( f ) ( 1) . Rosset t i does not

seek to rel y on subsecti ons ( f ) ( 2) or ( f ) ( 3) , so t hat l eaves hi mt o

r el y on subsect i on ( f ) ( 4) by ar gui ng t hat he coul d not have

di scover ed t he f act s under l yi ng hi s mot i on unt i l af t er Apr i l , 2010.

To sat i sf y subsect i on ( f ) ( 4) ' s r equi r ement t hat he coul d

not "have di scover ed t he f act s t hr ough r easonabl e di l i gence" unt i l

l ess t han a year bef or e t he pet i t i on was f i l ed a pet i t i oner must

show t hat he act ed wi t h "due di l i gence" t o set a pr i or convi ct i on

asi de once he was " i n a posi t i on t o real i ze t hat he has an i nt er est

i n chal l engi ng t he pr i or convi ct i on. " J ohnson, 544 U. S. at 308- 09.

I n J ohnson, t he Supr eme Cour t r ul ed t hat such a r eal i zat i on

t r i gger i ng t he dut y t o act wi t h di l i gence occur s upon t he ent r y of

a j udgment i n t he f eder al cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng. I d. The Cour t

r easoned t hat when j udgment i s ent ered a def endant sur el y knows

t hat t he pr i or st at e cour t convi ct i on may be used t o j ust i f y a

sent ence l onger t han t he sent ence that mi ght be i mposed but f or t he

pr i or convi ct i on. I d.

Rosset t i ' s or i gi nal j udgment of convi ct i on i n f eder al

cour t was ent ered on t he docket on November 27, 2002. 7 He di d not

make a f i l i ng i n st at e cour t seeki ng t o set asi de hi s convi ct i on

unt i l August 2008. Under J ohnson, hi s ef f or t t o r el y on

§ 2255( f ) ( 4) t o j ust i f y a bel at ed mot i on t o r eopen hi s sent ence

7 I n a cr i mi nal case, a j udgment i ncl udes, and t her ef or e comesaf t er , "t he pl ea, t he j ur y ver di ct or t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs, t headj udi cat i on, and t he sent ence. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( k) ( 1) .

-19-



shoul d t her ef or e f ai l . Rosset t i never t hel ess r ai ses t hr ee

argument s why t hi s shoul d not be so i n hi s case.

Fi r st , Rosset t i ar gues t hat t he r el evant "j udgment " i s

not hi s or i gi nal sent ence, but i nst ead t he new j udgment ent er ed by

t he di st r i ct cour t af t er we vacat ed hi s or i gi nal sent ence pur suant

t o Booker . Thi s ar gument , however , i s agai n pr ecl uded by J ohnson,

whi ch consi der ed and r ej ected, as del ay- i nduci ng, t he argument t hat

due di l i gence shoul d not be r equi r ed unt i l a def endant ' s f i nal

appeal i s concl uded. I d. at 309. Her e, Rosset t i i s ar gui ng, i n

essence, t hat , whet her one need di l i gent l y seek vacat ur of a

convi ct i on as soon as one' s f eder al j udgment i s ent er ed remai ns

unknown unt i l t he appeal i s event ual l y deci ded, r et r oact i vel y

t r i gger i ng such a dut y onl y i f t he deci si on i s t o af f i r m. Such a

r ul e cannot be squar ed wi t h J ohnson' s desi r e t o i dent i f y a

"par t i cul ar t i me" when t he di l i gence r equi r ement begi ns. I d. at

308. 8

Second, Rosset t i ar gues t hat , even i f t he di l i gence

r equi r ement normal l y woul d have begun at t he t i me of hi s f i r st

j udgment , he was not t hen i n "a posi t i on t o r eal i ze t hat he ha[ d]

an i nt er est i n chal l engi ng t he pr i or convi ct i on, " i d. , because,

pr i or t o J ohnson, t hi s ci r cui t ' s r ul e was t hat vacat ur of a

convi ct i on was not a "f act " under ( f ) ( 4) , see Br acket t v. Uni t ed

8 Thi s i s not a case i n whi ch onl y t he f i nal j udgment vest edt he pr i or convi cti on wi t h mat er i al i t y.

-20-



St at es, 270 F. 3d 60, 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Whi l e we doubt t hat t he

l ogi c of t hi s ar gument i s cor r ect , 9 t he si mpl e answer i s t hat even

i f t he di l i gence r equi r ement di d not begi n unt i l J ohnson was

deci ded i n Apr i l 2005, Rosset t i st i l l wai t ed t hr ee and a hal f year s

( unt i l August 2008) t o chal l enge hi s convi ct i on, l onger t han t he

del ay the Cour t f ound t o be non- di l i gent i n J ohnson.

Mor eover , even i f Rosset t i r easonabl y bel i eved t hat

( f ) ( 4) was not open t o hi m at t he t i me of j udgment , at t hat t i me,

and f or ei ght year s t her eaf t er , he st i l l had an "i nt er est i n

chal l engi ng t he pr i or convi ct i on" because, i f he had done so

successf ul l y wi t hi n one year of hi s f i nal cer t pet i t i on bei ng

deni ed i n J anuary 2009, he woul d have been abl e t o t i mel y f i l e a

mot i on t o vacat e hi s sent ence under § 2255( f ) ( 1) , r egar dl ess of how

§ 2255( f ) ( 4) was i nt er pr et ed. I n t hi s r espect , any i ncor r ect

bel i ef t hat ( f ) ( 4) was unavai l abl e gave even mor e r eason t o act

prompt l y once he was sent enced i n December 2002. He t her ef or e had

an "i nt er est i n chal l engi ng t he pr i or convi ct i on" even bef or e

J ohnson was deci ded.

9 The Supr eme Cour t was f ul l y aware of t he i nt er pr et at i on t hatt he Fi r st Ci r cui t ( and ot her s) had made of sect i on ( f ) ( 4) and di dnot suggest t hat t he l i mi t at i on per i od shoul d st ar t t o r un l at er i n

t hose ci r cui t s. See J ohnson, 544 U. S. at 302 ( ci t i ng Br acket t , 270F. 3d at 60) . The El event h Ci r cui t , wher e J ohnson br ought hi s case,had not t aken a posi t i on on whet her vacat ur of a convi ct i on coul dbe a f act under § 2255( f ) ( 4) pr i or t o hi s case, see J ohnson v.Uni t ed St ates, 340 F. 3d 1219, 1222- 26 ( 11t h Ci r . 2003) , and yet t heCour t di d not consi der t hi s at al l when det er mi ni ng whet her J ohnsonhad exer ci sed due di l i gence. See J ohnson, 544 U. S. at 311.

-21-



Thi r d, r eachi ng agai n i nt o hi s qui ver of

St r i ckl and ar gument s, Rosset t i ar gues t hat he rai sed t he

possi bi l i t y of seeki ng t o vacat e hi s convi ct i on t o hi s counsel but

t hat hi s counsel advi sed hi m he was unl i kel y t o succeed. J ohnson,

however , i t sel f r ej ect ed the ar gument t hat a def endant ' s l ack of

di l i gence i n seeki ng t o vacat e hi s st at e convi ct i on coul d be

excused by t he f act t hat he was unr epr esent ed, r easoni ng t hat t he

Cour t had "never accept ed pr o se repr esent at i on al one or pr ocedur al

i gnor ance as an excuse f or pr ol onged i nat t ent i on when a st at ut e' s

cl ear pol i cy cal l s f or pr ompt ness. " J ohnson, 544 U. S. at 311. We

cannot see how pr ocedur al i gnorance by counsel woul d cal l f or a

di f f er ent bal ance. Cf . Tr app v. Spencer , 479 F. 3d 53, 60 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ( r ej ect i ng t he ar gument t hat at t or ney er r or nor mal l y

j ust i f i es equi t abl e t ol l i ng of t he l i mi t at i ons per i od on habeas

pet i t i ons wher e t he er r or i s not "egr egi ous" and t he sent ence i s

not deat h) .

For t hese r easons we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y det er mi ned t hat Rosset t i ' s pet i t i on f or r esent enci ng was

unt i mel y.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct

cour t i s af f i r med.

So order ed.

-22-

rossetti v. united states, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents