United States v. Herbert , 67 F. App'x 808 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                             No. 01-7349
    TODD ANDREW HERBERT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
    (S. Ct. No. 01-10397)
    Submitted: May 27, 2003
    Decided: June 18, 2003
    Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and
    MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Todd Andrew Herbert, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge
    Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appel-
    lee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. HERBERT
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court for
    "further consideration in light of Clay v. United States, 538 U.S. __[,
    
    123 S. Ct. 1072
    ] (2003)." Todd Andrew Herbert seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing his motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000). In dismissing Herbert’s claim under United States v. Rhynes,
    
    196 F.3d 207
    , 238-40 (4th Cir. 1999), vacated in part on other
    grounds, 
    218 F.3d 310
     (4th Cir. 2000), raised in his motion to amend
    the § 2255 motion, the district court relied on this court’s ruling in
    United States v. Torres, 
    211 F.3d 836
    , 837 (4th Cir.) (rev’d, Clay v.
    United States, 
    123 S. Ct. 1072
     (2003)), by finding the claim untimely
    filed. Because Torres was overruled by Clay, it is now clear that Her-
    bert’s conviction was not final until after the ninety-day period of
    time for petitioning for a writ of certiorari had expired. See Clay, 
    123 S. Ct. at 1079
    . Herbert’s motion to amend his § 2255 motion was filed
    within one year of his conviction becoming final. Accordingly, it was
    timely filed, and the district court erred to the extent that it dismissed
    Herbert’s Rhynes claim as untimely. As to the remaining claims dis-
    posed by the district, we find no error. However, because Herbert
    failed to make the appropriate showing, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a
    habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a cer-
    tificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). A certificate
    of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court
    on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu-
    tional right." 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000). A certificate of appeala-
    bility will not issue as to claims dismissed by a district court solely
    on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both "(1)
    ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition [or
    motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and
    (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
    court was correct in its procedural ruling.’" Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    ,
    684 (4th Cir. 2001).
    As to those claims dismissed by the district court on the merits, we
    find Herbert fails to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a
    UNITED STATES v. HERBERT                        3
    constitutional right." As to the Rhynes claim, which was dismissed
    solely on procedural grounds, Herbert fails to show that counsel was
    ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the district court erred
    by providing the jury with a general verdict form. "[T]he case law is
    clear that an attorney’s assistance is not rendered ineffective because
    he failed to anticipate a new rule of law." Kornahrens v. Evatt, 
    66 F.3d 1350
    , 1360 (4th Cir. 1995). Thus, Herbert cannot state a valid
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
    and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED