United States v. Kareem A. Nagib

44 F.3d 619, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 666, 1995 WL 11233

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: January 13, 1995
• Docket: 93-4018
• Status: Published

Opinions

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge.

On October 1, 1990, the district court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced defendant, Kareem Nagib (“Nagib”), on various drug charges. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), Nagib had ten days in which to perfect a timely appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). On the last available day, October 11, 1990, Nagib’s counsel filed a motion to reconsider the sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). As a previous panel of this court has already noted in this case, Rule 35(b) no longer allows such a motion after the adoption of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. See 936 F.2d 292, 294 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 950, 112 S.Ct. 399, 116 L.Ed.2d 349 (1991). It is undisputed that this motion did not toll the running of Rulé 4(b)’s ten day time limit.

Realizing his error, Nagib’s counsel filed a motion on October 29, 1990, to, enlarge the •time to appeal under Rule 4(b). Rule 4(b) allows the district court to enlarge the available time to file á notice of appeal if the moving party demonstrates “excusable neglect.” Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). If the district court makes such a finding, Rule 4(b) authorizes the judge to enlarge the available time period to thirty days beyond the time originally allowed by the Rule. The district judge made a finding of “excusable neglect” and enlarged the period to file Nagib’s appeal to thirty days from November 7, 1990. On November 15, 1990, Nagib filed a notice of appeal.

Because we concluded we were without jurisdiction, this court dismissed Nagib’s appeal without reaching the merits. See 936 F.2d at 295. Judge Easterbrook, speaking for the court, explained that even if there was excusable neglect to justify enlargement under Rule 4(b), the district court improperly extended the time to file the appeal. Id. He noted that but for the improvident Rule 35(b) motion, Nagib would have been foreclosed from filing an appeal after October 11, 1990, and that Rule 4(b) allowed the district court to extend the period of filing for thirty days beyond that date. Thus, the last possible day Nagib could have perfected a timely appeal was November 10. Since Nagib did not file his notice of appeal until November 15, Judge Easterbrook concluded “[t]he appeal is therefore untimely, and as the limit established by Rule 4(b) is jurisdictional, Na-gib’s appeal must be dismissed.” Id. (citing United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 288, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

Sixteen months later, in November of 1992, Nagib filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, collaterally attacking the district court’s judgment of conviction. Nagib asked the-district court to set aside his conviction and enter a new judgment to enable him to take a direct appeal to this court. Ás grounds for his petition, Nagib argued that his former lawyer, subsequently replaced, had provided him ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The district court agreed and vacated his sentence. The district judge resentenced Nagib, and he subsequently filed this timely direct appeal from the resentencing.

I. MUST NAGIB SHOW PREJUDICE?

Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), an appellant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show: 1) that his “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and 2) that the deficiency “prejudiced the defense.” The Strickland standard, however, allows for a “presumption” of prejudice where there is an “[a]etual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether.” Id. at 692, 104 S.Ct. at 2067. Strickland noted that “[prejudice in these circumstances is so likely that case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the cost. Moreover, such circumstances involve impairments of the Sixth Amendment right that are easy to identify.” Id. (citation omitted).

The district court agreed with Nagib’s argument that his lawyer’s error in pursuing an appeal constituted per se ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby relieving him of the heavy burden to show prejudice. At the time of the district court’s opinion, this court had not spoken directly to this issue. In Castellanos v. United States, 26 F.3d 717 (7th Cir.1994), however, we held: “If the defendant told his lawyer to appeal, and the lawyer dropped the ball, then the defendant has been deprived, not of effective assistance of counsel, but of any assistance of counsel on appeal. Abandonment is a per se violation of the [S]ixth [Ajmendment.” Id. at 718 (emphasis in original).

In Castellanos, we joined every other circuit that has addressed the question in holding that a showing of prejudice is not required under Strickland when the defendant sought to appeal his conviction but his attorney, in effect, “abandoned” the appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1993); United States v. Horodner, 993 F.2d 191, 195 (9th Cir.1993); Bonneau v. United States, 961 F.2d 17, 23 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Davis, 929 F.2d 554, 557 (10th Cir.1991); Williams v. Lockhart, 849 F.2d 1134, 1137 (8th Cir.1988). In Castella-nos, we focused on the possible reasons for failing to pursue a direct appeal. We explained that a “‘[rjequest’ is an important ingredient in this formula. A lawyer need not appeal unless the client wants to pursue that avenue.” See Castellanos,. 26 F.3d at 719. In Castellanos, the lawyer never filed a notice of appeal even though the defendant instructed him to do so. Id. at 718. Judge Easterbrook, speaking for the court, concluded that the “prejudice” prong was inappropriate under those circumstances because “the defendant never receive[d] the benefit of a lawyer’s services in constructing potential appellate arguments.” Id.

We do not believe the district judge characterized this ease as one of abandonment. Nagib’s counsel filed post-sentence motions in the district court and took an ineffectual appeal. The question, then, is whether, in the absence of such a specific finding, Nagib is required to show prejudice, and if so, whether he is able to do so. The circumstances of this case may indeed fall within the Castellanos ambit, since Nagib’s counsel did “drop the ball” in assisting him in pursuing a timely appeal.

Nagib’s counsel, however, did not refuse or neglect to file a notice of appeal. Bather, he filed an ill-advised motion and then an untimely notice of appeal. Castellanos held that “prejudice” must be shown by a defendant unless “the lawyer fails to show up for appeal — which can occur either if the lawyer fails to initiate an appeal or if the lawyer fails to prosecute the appeal.” Id. at 719 (emphasis added).

In determining whether this case falls within Castellanos, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit is instructive. In United States v. Horodner, 993 F.2d 191 (9th Cir.1993), defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922. His attorney filed a notice of appeal, but it was untimely. Id. at 192. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Horodner’s appeal as untimely in violation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b). Id. Defendant sought vacatur and resentencing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his lawyer’s failure to perfect a timely appeal in accord with his instructions constituted per se ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 194-95. The district court denied the petition and he appealed.

In ordering the ease remanded to determine whether Horodner consented to the abandonment of his appeal, the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected a distinction between filing an untimely appeal and failing to file at all. Id. at 195. The court explained that in Lozada v. Deeds, 964 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir.1992), it held that prejudice need not be shown to establish ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant’s lawyer failed to file a notice of appeal despite his client’s instructions. Id. The Horodner court stated that “[i]n hozada, the defendant’s counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. Here, the notice of appeal was filed but it was filed out of time. The legal effect is the same.” Id. Accordingly, defendant was relieved of the prejudice requirement of Strickland. Id.

The Ninth Circuit apparently sees no meaningful distinction for the purposes of a Strickland analysis between attorney nonfea-sance (i.e., where a defendant instructs his counsel to appeal and the lawyer never files a notice of appeal) and attorney misfeasance (ie., where a defendant instructs his counsel to appeal but the notice of appeal is filed untimely due to attorney error). Cf. Williams, 849 F.2d at 1137 n. 3 (“ ‘[Cjourts have found that a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel when the malfeasance or nonfeasance of his or her counsel effectively deprived the defendant of the right to appeal.’ ”). In Castellanos, however, we used the word “abandonment” to describe the type of circumstance under which a defendant might be relieved of the burden to show prejudice under Strickland. Though we cited Horodner in our Castellanos decision, we have never decided whether the no prejudice rule set forth in that case extends to instances of lawyer misfeasance such as in Horodner and the case at bar. On the record before us, we decline to do so today.

II. DID NAGIB CONSENT TO THE INITIAL TARDY APPEAL?

Horodner did not reach the merits of the defendant’s appeal because there was nothing in the record indicating whether Horodner had instructed his counsel in a timely manner to file a notice of appeal. Although Horodner alleged that he instructed his counsel to appeal, the court refused to resolve the matter on the factual record before it, concluding that “[t]he question thus becomes: Did Horodner consent to the abandonment of his appeal from his 1987 convictions? We cannot answer this from the record before us. Remand is necessary.” Horodner, 993 F.2d at 195.

In United States v. Mosley, 967 F.2d 242 (7th Cir.1992), we followed this approach when we held that

[rjelief depended, then, on proof that Mosley’s lawyer dropped the ball. Instead of taking a “quick and simple” path, the district court must take the longer but proper path of figuring out what happened. Did Mosley’s lawyer render ineffective assistance? Is Mosley’s memory playing tricks on him? Is. he making it all up in a desperate effort to have the appeal he willingly bypassed in 1989?

Id. at 244 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Castellanos, we stated that

[bjecause the district judges in these cases concluded that Castellanos and Streete lacked good prospects on direct appeal, they did not decide whether the defendants actually instructed their lawyers to take appeals. We vacate the judgments of the district court and remand so that the courts may determine whether Castellanos and Streete timely told their lawyers that they wanted appellate review. If the answer is yes, then the court should enter an order providing ... the right to an appellate proceeding, as if on direct appeal.

See Castellanos, 26 F.3d at 720 (emphasis added).

The district judge in the case at bar did not have the benefit of our decision in Castel-lanos. As a result, he never addressed the legal or factual distinction, if there is one, between a case of lawyer nonfeasance and lawyer misfeasance. Because he held Nagib did not have to show prejudice, the district judge never considered whether Nagib could have made that showing. In short, the factual record before us is not conducive to our resolution of either the jurisdictional question or the merits.

The dissent argues that remand is unnecessary because it is unlikely that Nagib was responsible for the filing of his untimely appeal. Judge. Posner may indeed be correct, but the district court made no finding that Nagib requested, in a timely manner, that his lawyer file an appeal. Moreover, there is nothing in the record independently to support such a conclusion. The dissent, of course, presumes that Nagib instructed his counsel to seek appellate review because it is unlikely that Nagib even knew about Rule 35 motions or the time limits for appeal. The problem remains, however, that if Nagib first instructed his lawyer to appeal on October 12, 1990 — after consenting to his counsel’s strategic decision to file a motion to reconsider the sentence on the very last day available under Rule 4(b) — he may not be able to demonstrate prejudice. The record does not reflect whether Nagib requested, in a timely fashion or at all, that his lawyer file a notice of appeal. Thus, we must REMAND to determine whether Nagib’s lost appeal is due entirely to his lawyer’s error or perhaps, in part, to his own negligence. This court’s decisions in Mosley and Castellanos indicate that such findings must be made by the trial court. We are not unsympathetic to the dissent’s concern about delay, but we continue to believe that remand is the proper course.

We believe, under the circumstances, that this case should be REMANDED to the district court to consider and make specific findings with respect to abandonment and the exact nature of Nagib’s request for appeal, and to consider the issue of prejudice in fight of Castellanos, Horodner, and the other authorities herein considered.

We, therefore, REMAND this case on the jurisdiction issue discussed for further consideration by the district court in accordance with this opinion.