WPC.T %=KXy= Me!]멋2'ZHUsFln0z>ǔE0_WƊODeg e6X[N隶ʊ$4ѡ4zrEGUCBw9KR@0H?;7`1k1\Nb0%-U6v# %mUs 04 BUF 0x"U> 0N"&^  0D, 4@!P!!p ) Nw4 mU>U.0M^ 01b 0=) f 0" 0>#(#^"$ 0$$ 0J% 0>& 0& 0a' 0( 0( 09o) 0) 02* 0* 0:+ 0+ 0_q, 0 , 0k- 0E/ B* 1 D361 Ci1 D+1 01 0u3 06\4 04 0:5 0h5 0F<6U66U*6 06 07 08 09 0: 0y; 0[< 0:=>+> 0@>"? 0:? 0@ 0@ 0A 0B 0wC 0GD 0E 0E 0F 0G 0xH 0PI 0%J 0J 0K 0L D/[M D/MMhONR;dRRS-SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS T<Q 9Z+Courier NewBrother HL-1240 series,,,,,,0X<6X`(( T$   d4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(((3$ T!       0  \  `&Times New Roman(O$Ԕ_?xxx,,Xx{]k+HHH,,/H1\?xxx,,hXx BourbeauBonillaTochio"dispositional"DanielleScanlonCharlestownLisaViensVeneauOlivierDiazRuizLillyTammyTetreaultVienGerryYanovitchMaloneyHensonEnnisS.C.PeasleeC.J.CushPerkinsT]heHebertDemboskiCurtisDelaneyheadshotQuiricoy0, (#$  0    \:#|v"@HOZqE?00004/Nmpϟ @2RQ@LL "@HOZqE?00004/Nmpϟ @2RQ@LL "@HOZqE?00004/Nmpϟ @2RQ@LL <6X9`+Courier3Ha`' Line Printer< 9+CourierBoldh',(*.txtU \  `&Times New Roman<6X9`(Courier0.Normal  $      3    _ButseeAppendixat124125whereMr._BERTHOFF_,atthe  trialcourtssuggestion,ontheinitialinquiryofwhetherhe  hadacceptedresponsibility,submittedtoatruthfulprofferwith w thegovernment.<:Definition T  - ' Your Name0Your Name .   <GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition T  #CXd#    ('z&H1      XXX2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEKE<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KE<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/KE<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I;<4$ ** ddI  B    ?F%2A`Arial?9=<*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d::::'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI;<4$** ddI  B    ?F%2A`Arial?9=<*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKE<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKE<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5        2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  :)1dxd:)2dxd  $      1    _ԀPetitionerraisedinhisoriginalpetitionanissue  concerningthefactthathisroleintheoffensewasnot  contested;thattheevidenceassetforthinthepresentence w reportswasindicativeof_Cataluci_Ԁbeingthe kingpin.  $      2    _ԀThetrialcourtinitsReportbringsintoquestionthe  factualsupportforthisfinding,suggestinginsteadthatthere  wasampleevidenceofthedefendantsculpabilityforlargerdrug w quantitiesindependentoftheirprotectedproffers;drug K| quantitiesthatshouldhavebeendeterminedbythecourt,notthe P government.X6XXX_Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.at6365#X6XXX6 #.Addendumat3233. $ Ѐ  e  1 $      4    _ԀSaidprovisionspecificallyconcernssecondorsuccessive  petitionsandthisargumentwilladdresstheissueoffirst  petitionsinaccordancewiththeissuecertified. H   X ## #      FR1.3 T!   _Rw+7+hW'ujOP kP@X6XXX   `    @ UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS P @!FORTHEFIRSTCIRCUIT $    ` @XX&NO.991276(#(#L(# |     `     h      p      ` ̀FREDERICW._BERTHOFF_      H     `     h @<<!PetitionerAppellant#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԉ      `     h @tt*v. H  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, @     `    @xx"RespondentAppellee  Ѐ l Ѐ @ @ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS d @@ @ HONORABLEWILLIAMYOUNG,J.PRESIDING 8 @$ $ APPELLANTFREDERICW._BERTHOFF_'SOPENINGBRIEF  @xx"FURTHERPROCEEDINGS0  0 (#(#0x (# (#x(#x(#    `    `  BOURBEAU&BONILLA T#%    `  MichaelC.Bourbeau,Esq. ($x&    `  _BBO_Ԁ#545908 $L '    `  21UnionStreet % !(    `  Boston,MA02l08 &!)    `  (617)7229292 x'"*      `  AttorneysforPetitionerAppellant  )p$, Ѐ   `  FREDERICW._BERTHOFF_ )D%-  _  D-(1 Ї `     h      p   @% TABLEOFCONTENTS  $  `  ̀Page 0   Ѐ  T  TableofAuthorities................ii  (  StatementofJurisdiction..............1   #X6XXX6w#X6XXX6IssuesPresented..................2 (x  #X6XXX6 #X6XXX6StatementoftheCase...............0 2  (# (# StatementofFacts.................4 x StandardofReview.................0 7 p (# (# SummaryofArgument.................7  Argument p #X6XXX6 #X6XXX6I.WhetherAppellantwasdeniedhisSixthAmendment#X6XXX6i#X6XXX6Ԁ h righttotrialbyjurybythedisparatesentencing < ofcodefendantswhopleadguiltypriortotrial#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁ  comparedtothosedefendantswholoseattrial?#X6XXX6#X6XXX6........8  II.#X6XXX65#X6XXX6ԀWhether_Apprendi_#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁappliesretroactivelyto <  casesoncollateralreviewwithrespectto  `! first28U.S.C.2255or2254petitions#X6XXX6#X6XXX6?.............22#X6XXX6#X6XXX6  4" #X6XXX6E#X6XXX6 `     h Conclusion.....................27 `#% CompliancewithFormatting.............27 %X ' @-_i_ P-(1 'u '  86XXdXXd8 '  @hh# TableofAuthorities   ' Cases   /      7      ?     Page   #X6XXX6#X6XXX6_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466(2000)...1,2,4,8,22,25,26,27 ;l #X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ashleyv.UnitedStates,266F.3d671(7thCir.2001)..22,23,24#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 @ #X6XXX6#X6XXX6_Bordenkircher_Ԁv.Hayes,434U.S.357,363(1978).......9,12  Bradyv.UnitedStates,397U.S.742,25L.Ed.   2d747,90S.Ct.1463(1970)............................10#X6XXX6j#X6XXX6   _Chaffin_Ԁv._Stynchcombe_,412U.S.17,3031,36L.Ed. _   2d714,93S.Ct.1977(1973)..........................11,13,21#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 3 d  _Corbitt_Ԁv.NewJersey,439U.S.212,,58L.Ed.  8  2d466,99S.Ct.492(1978)...........................10,20,21#X6XXX6#X6XXX6   Forty_Estremera_Ԁv.UnitedStates,_Dkt_.No.012337,   (November21,2001)......................................4#X6XXX6#X6XXX6   #X6XXX67#X6XXX6Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.153(1976))...................21 W  #X6XXX6#X6XXX6Jonesv.Smith,231F.3d1227(9thCir.2000)............#X6XXX6)#X6XXX6 G" 25 +\  NorthCarolinav.Pearce,395U.S.711(1969)............9,21#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 0 #X6XXX6#X6XXX6Robertsv.UnitedStates,445U.S.552,63L.Ed.  2d622,100S.Ct.1358(1980)...........................14#X6XXX6#X6XXX6  Sawyerv.Smith,497U.S.227,242(1990)...............#X6XXX6#X6XXX626,27 { #X6XXX6= #X6XXX6Shapirov.Thompson,394U.S.618(1969................11#X6XXX6 #X6XXX6 O _Shelton_Ԁv.Tucker,364U.S.479()......................20#X6XXX6!#X6XXX6 #T Sullivanv.Louisiana,508_U. S_.275(1993)#X6XXX6!#X6XXX6..............26 ( #X6XXX6"#_Teague_Ԁ_v.Lane_,489U.S.288(1989).......................25,26  X6XXX6Tylerv.Cain,121S.Ct.2478(2001)...................23,24#X6XXX6##X6XXX6  #X6XXX6$#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Aguilar_Ԅ_Aranceta_,957F.2d18 s (1stCir.1992)..........................................7 Gx #X6XXX6i$#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Baltas_,236F.3d27(1stCir.2001)......#X6XXX6%#X6XXX6Ԁ16 L UnitedStatesv._Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.2d50   (_D.C.Mass_Ԁ2001)........................4,6,9,13,14,15,17,18,19#X6XXX6-&#X6XXX6  UnitedStatesv._DeLe;n_ԀRuiz,47F.3d452(1stCir.1995).10#X6XXX6l'#X6XXX6  UnitedStatesv._DiPietro_,936F.2d6(1stCir.1992)....#X6XXX6*(#X6XXX6 S#X6XXX6(#X6XXX6󀀀7 k  UnitedStatesv._Disanto_,86F.3d1238(1stCir.1996)....7#X6XXX6R)#X6XXX6 ! UnitedStatesv.Frazier,971F.2d1076(4thCir.1992#X6XXX6*#X6XXX6)....10,12#X6XXX6*#X6XXX6  " UnitedStatesv._Gaudin_,515_U. S_.506(1995).............26#X6XXX6*#X6XXX6 !# UnitedStatesv.Jackson,390U.S.570(1968)............9,19 "$ UnitedStates_v.Jones_,934F.2d1199(11thCir.1991)......10#X6XXX6+#X6XXX6 #/ % #X6XXX6,#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Klotz_󀀀943F.2d707(7thCir.1991).....15#X6XXX6V-#X6XXX6 %%V!& #X6XXX6-#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv.Long,823F.2d1209(7thCir.1987).....#X6XXX6S.#X6XXX6 G" 15 L&}"' UnitedStatesv._Mazzaferro_,865F.2d450(1stCir.1989)..9 s'#( UnitedStatesv.Moss,252F.3d993(8thCir.2001)......#X6XXX6.# XXXX6Ԁ#X6XX X/#X6XXX6Ԁ25 ($) #X6XXX6>0#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Muoz_,36F.3d1229(1stCir.1994).....10#X6XXX60#X6XXX6 )&* #X6XXX6C1#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Neuhausser_,241F.3d460(6thCir.2001).22#X6XXX61#X6XXX6 +9'+ #X6XXX6C2#X6XXX6@zz,ii /+/  0,0 j j  X8XXdXXd8 j   #X6XXX62#X6XXX6Cases   /      7      ?     Page   #X6XXX63#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv.Paz_Uribe_,891F.2d396(1stCir.1989).12#X6XXX64#X6XXX6 7 #X6XXX6`5#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Robel_,389U.S.258(1967)#X6XXX65#X6XXX6...............20 -^ UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez,162F.3d135(1stCir.1998)13,14,20 T UnitedStatesv.Sanders,247F.3d139(4thCir.2001)....25#X6XXX6P6#X6XXX6 { #X6XXX6\7#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv.Turner,864F.2d1394(7thCir.1989)....15   #X6XXX67#UnitedStatesv.Turner,267F.3d225,228(3rdCir.2001)X6XXX6.24   UnitedStatesv.Wright,873F.2d437(1stCir.1989)....#X6XXX68#X6XXX6Ԁ#X6XXX6-9#X6XXX6Ԁ18  ! #X6XXX6p9#X6XXX6   Statutes,RulesandConstitutionalReferences  >o  #X6XXX69#UnitedStatesConstitution,SixthAmendment..............X6XXX6 G" 8   #X6XXX6:#X6XXX6_F.R.Cr.P._,Rule11.......................................9#X6XXX6;#X6XXX6   Fed.R._Crim_.P.11(e)(1)#X6XXX6;#X6XXX6................................12   Fed.R._Crim_.P.11(e)(1)(B).............................#X6XXX6@<#X6XXX6Ԁ18  > Fed.R._Crim_.P.11(e)(1)).............................18#X6XXX6=#X6XXX6 4e Fed.R._Crim_.P.11(e)(2)#X6XXX6=#X6XXX6................................18#X6XXX6_>#X6XXX6 [ 21U.S.C.841(a)(1)......................................2  21U.S.C.841(b)(1)(D)(1994)...........................23#X6XXX6>#X6XXX6  28U.S.C.1291.........................................2#X6XXX6?#X6XXX6  #X6XXX6E@#X6XXX628U.S.C.2255#X6XXX6@#X6XXX6.......................................1,22,23 (  _U.S.S.Guidelines_ Q  #X6XXX6@#X6XXX6_U.S.S.G._Ԁ1B1.8(a).....................................#X6XXX6A#X6XXX6Ԁ14  _U.S.S.G._Ԁ3E1.1...................................2,3,9,16,20#X6XXX6eB#X6XXX6    _U.S.S.G._Ԁ5K1................................1,2,3,5,10,16,20#X6XXX6"C#X6XXX6   #X6XXX6C#X6XXX6    /      7 Other  #Q  J._Archbold_,PleadingandEvidenceinCriminalCases S$  (5thAm.ed.1846)#X6XXX6=D#X6XXX6.....................................27  z%!  J.Story,CommentariesontheConstitution928-929 &" (1833).................................................27#X6XXX6pE#X6XXX6  '#  Nagel,NegotiatedPleasUndertheFederalSentencing ( %  Guidelines:TheFirstFifteenMonths,27Am._Crim_. *G&! _L.Rev_.231,272(1989)..................................17 =+n'" _Yellen_,ProbationOfficersLookatPleaBargaining, d,(# andDoNotlikeWhatTheySee,8Fed.Sentencing -)$ Rep.339,340(1996)...................................17 .*% #X6XXX6F#  X6XXX6@>>,iii#X6XXX63I#X6XXX6Ԉ   / ,& k k 4 X k  '#X6XXX6I#X6XXX6 @7STATEMENTOFSUBJECTMATTERANDAPPELLATEJURISDICTION  (#  '   #X6XXX6gJ#X6XXX6InApril1997Mr._BERTHOFF_ԀfiledhisPetitionforHabeas  : Corpus,#X6XXX67K#X6XXX6Ԁ#X6XXX6K#X6XXX6Ԁ28U.S.C.2255,#X6XXX60L#X6XXX6ԀAppellantsRecordAppendix  [hereinafter Appendix]at5.OnDecember15,1998,District Y  CourtWilliamYoungdeniedMr._BERTHOFF_sPetition,Appendixat  2  140.Mr._BERTHOFF_Ԁappealedthatdecisionwhichresultedinthe   CourtofAppealsremandtodeterminetheissueonwhichthe Q  certificateof_appealibility_Ԁwasissued.OnApril9,2001the *  DistrictCourtissuedareportspecifyingtheissueonwhichthe  certificateof_appealability_Ԁwasgranted,towit:theissueof Iz whether_BERTHOFF_sSixthAmendmentRighttoatrialbyjurywas "  undulyandunconstitutionallyburdenedbythedisparitycaused  bythegovernmentspolicyof factbargainingvarious Ar defendantsoffenseconduct,thedisparityinthesentences  grantedcooperatingcodefendantswith_U.S.S.G._Ԁ5K1departures,  andthedisparityofthosewhoaregranted acceptanceof 9j responsibilityreductions,comparedwiththeguidelinesentence ! ofadefendantwholosesat܀trial.Appellanttimelyfiledanotice !# ofappealonApril16,2001.SupplementalAppendixat75. 1#b%   OnDecember19,2001thedistrictcourtgrantedamotionto ,%]!' expandthecertificateof_appealability_Ԁtoincludetheissueof &#) whether#X6XXX6L#X6XXX6_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466(2000)applies |($+ retroactivelytocasesoncollateralreview#X6XXX6  provenattrial._BERTHOFF_Ԁfiledasupplementalpleading   requestingthecourttoapply_Apprendi_.SupplementalAppendixat ] 76.ThedistrictcourtinitsReportdeniedtherequestonthe 6 basisthat_Apprendi_hadnotbeenmaderetroactive.Afterthis  Courtissuedacertificateof_appealability_Ԁontheissueof U _Apprendi_sretroactiveapplicationinanothermatter,#X6XXX6Zm#X6XXX6Forty . _Estremera_Ԁv.UnitedStates,_Dkt_.No.012337,(November21,2001),#X6XXX6q#X6XXX6  _BERTHOFF_Ԁmovedtoexpandthecertificateof_appealibility_Ԁthathas M~ beengrantedinhiscasetoalsoincludetheretroactivityof &  _Apprendi_issue.Thismotionwasgrantedbythedistrictcourton  " December19,2001.SupplementalAppendixat163. x   (#  E"v$    `     h     @k k 7 STATEMENTOFAPPLICABLEFACTS  '$*   AssetforthinthetrialcourtsReport,whichisquoted )'&, hereinatlength,theoffenseconducthereininvolvedMr. +'. _BERTHOFF_sparticipationinamarijuanaandhashishsmuggling  operation.Forthepurposesofthisappeal,thefactsarenotin w contention.Thegovernmentscaseincludedtestifyingco P defendantswhoweresentenced,afterpleadingguilty,in  accordancewiththeacceptanceofresponsibilityprovisionsofthe o  UnitedStatesSentencingGuidelinesand_U.S.S.G._Ԁ5K1motions  H  thatwerefiledbythegovernment.Inexplainingitsdecisionto   grantthecertificateof_appealibility_Ԁinthiscasethedistrict g  courtdiscussedthefactualbackgroundasitrelatedtothe @  violationofPetitionersSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial  issue: _ #X6XXX6q# XXXX60  #X6XX X@y#X6XXX6 _Berthoff_ [was]thecentral,movingforceinthiscriminality, Z the"kingpin"ifyouwill.Hewastriedwithcodefendants :k William_Tibolt_Ԁ("_Tibolt_")andHolland.Allwereconvicted, ? althoughnotonallcounts.Isentenced_Berthoff_Ԁtotwenty  oneyears'imprisonmentonCountsOneandTwo;threeyears'  imprisonmentonCountThree;twentyyears'imprisonmenton  CountsSeventhroughFourteen;andtenyears'imprisonmenton ^ CountSixteen,withthesentencesonallcountstorun 2c concurrently.(Fn.JosephH._Catalucci_,theleaderofan 7 overlapping,closelyrelateddrugconspiracyexistingduring   thesametimeperiodandalsoinvolvingStephenMarble,   pleadedguiltybeforeJudgeFreedmanandonSeptember29, ! 1993wassentencedbyhimtofifteenyearsandeightmonths V " imprisonment)_f #  1      _. *![### 0  _Cimeno_ ,theindividualnextto_Berthoff_Ԁmostculpableinthis ]"$ conspiracy,pleadedguiltypriortotrialandcooperated,his =#n% testimonybeingquiteimportanttotheconvictionof_Berthoff_ $B & andabsolutelyvitaltotheconvictionofHolland.I $!' sentencedhimtothreeyears'imprisonment.%!(##  0  Mello ,like_Cimeno_Ԁanimportantfigureinthisconspiracy, &#) alsopleadedguiltyandcooperated,histestimonybeingless  importantthanthatof_Cimeno_.Isentencedhimtothree  years'imprisonment.w##  0  _Schifone_ ,alesserfigure,pleadedguiltyandcooperated.I  sentencedhimtofiveyears'probation,thefirstninemonths ~ tobespentinhousearrest.R## 0  _Tibolt_ wenttotrial.Acceptinghisstatuteoflimitations y  argument,theCourtgrantedhimamidtrialjudgmentof Y  acquittalonCountsOneandTwo._Tibolt_Ԁwasconvictedof - ^ moneylaundering,andIsentencedhimtoeightyears'  2  imprisonment.Thehapless Holland ,excitableandsomewhat    spacedout,triedtomanagehisowndefense.Skipperofthe   vesselthatmadethedrugrun,Hollandprofessednothingmore   thanadesiretobereunitedwithhischildren,Sunshineand ]  JellyBean,andhadbeenadvisedthathehadanironclad 1b  statuteoflimitationsdefense.Attrial,however,_Cimeno_ 6  cameupwithsomenewtestimonythatscotchedthatdefense.   Afterhisconviction,Isentencedhimtofiveyears'  imprisonment...## #X6XXX6y#X6XXX6Ԁ  Ѐ  UnitedStatesv._Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.2d50,53(_D.C.Mass_  2001). yAddendumat35.    Priortotrial,Petitionersattorney,inresponsetoa  letterfrom_AUSA_Ԁ_Pucci_,triedtonegotiateapleawhichwas Fw rejectedonthebasisthatthegovernmentwantedapleathat  involvedcooperation.Appendixat64,94and97;Gov._App.at_Ԁ87.    #X6XXX6#X6XXX6Theamountofcontraband,marijuanaand/orhashish,was  generallyallegedintheSupercedingIndictmentasanovertactin 9!j! theconspiracyandageneralavermentthatthesubstancecontained "# 1000kilogramsormoreof adetectableamountofmarijuanaor $ % hashish.Thespecificquantitywasnotconsideredbythejury, 1&b"' norwasthe#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁjuryinstructedthattheyweretodeterminethe ' $) quantityandnatureofthecontrabandbeyondareasonabledoubt. )%+ SupplementalAppendixat76.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁ#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 )+Z'- Ї@k k 7 APPLICABLESTANDARDOFREVIEW     Questionsofconstitutionallawarerevieweddenovo,evenif  thosequestionsareraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.See#X6XXX62#X6XXX6   SUnitedStatesv._Aguilar_Ԅ_Aranceta_,957F.2d18,21(1stCir.  K 1992);UnitedStatesv._DiPietro_,936F.2d6,8(1stCir.1992)#X6XXX6わ#X6XXX6;   Seealso S#X6XXX6#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Disanto_,86F.3d1238(1stCir.1996).#X6XXX6㊑# XXXX6 j    S#X6XX X*#X6XXX6@"7 SUMMARYOFARGUMENT  &    #X6XXX6㧒#Petitionerhassoughthabeasreliefafterhewassentenced   aftertrialtotwentyoneyearswhilehiscodefendant,who ] accordingtothefindingsofthetrialwasnearlyasculpableas 6 he,wassentencedtothreeyears,a700%difference.Thegross  disparitywascausedbythefactthatthecodefendantpleadand U cooperatedwiththegovernment,allowingthecourttomake .  acceptanceofresponsibilityand substantialassistance  Guidelinereductions.Thetrialcourthasfound,whilenot M~ grantingthePetition,thatsuchdisparityisachillingviolation &  oftheSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialinthatsaid  " Guidelineprovisions,aswellasthenegotiatingpracticesofthe E"v$ government,punishdefendantsforexercisingtheirrightto # & requirethegovernmenttoproveitscaseattrial.X6XXX6 %!(   Petitionerssentenceexceededthebasicstatutorymaximum ='n#* fordistributionofmarijuanabecausethetrialcourtfoundbya (%, preponderanceoftheevidencethatPetitionerwasresponsiblefor *&. anamountforwhichenhancedpenaltiescouldbeimposed. 5,f(0 FollowingtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrulingin_Apprendi_,  whichheldthatdrugquantitieswhichcauseasentencetoexceed w thestatutorymaximummustbepleadandprovenbeyondareasonable P doubtattrial,Petitioneraskedthecourttoconsidertheissue  togetherwiththeotherissuespresentedinhisPetition.The o  trialcourtdeniedsaidreliefonthebasisthatsaidrequestwas  H  untimelyunlesscontrollingauthorityfindsthe_Apprendi_ruleto   beretroactive.Petitioner,bywayofthisappeal,asksthis g  Courttofindthat_Apprendi_isretroactivetocases,suchasthe @  oneatbar,ontheirfirstpetitionforcollateralreview.  @WW'7 ARGUMENT  8 #X6XXX6N#X6XXX6 0   I.APPELLANTWASDENIEDHISSIXTHAMENDMENTRIGHTTOTRIALBY  JURYBECAUSETHECOSTOFEXERCISINGTHATRIGHT,BASEDONTHE { NEGOTIATINGPRACTICEOFTHEGOVERNMENTANDTHESENTENCING [ PRACTICESOFTHECOURT,WASTOBEPUNISHEDSIGNIFICANTLYMORE ;l SEVERELYTHANTHOSEWHOPLEADGUILTYWITHOUTTRIAL.#X6XXX6# X6XXX6МL## #X6XXX6ޞ#  0  Inallcriminalproceedings,theaccusedshallenjoythe   righttoaspeedyandpublictrial,byanimpartialjuryof   theStateanddistrictwhereinthecrimeshallhavebeen ! committed,whichdistrictshallhavebeenpreviously { " ascertainedbylaw,andtobeinformedofthenatureand [!# causeoftheaccusation;tobeconfrontedwiththewitnesses ;"l$ againsthim;tohavetheCompulsoryprocessforobtaining #L% Witnessesinhisfavor,andtohavetheAssistanceofCounsel #, & forhis_defence_. $ !'##    `  UnitedStatesConstitution,SixthAmendment &")    `   )H%, X X6XXX6Ԁ"Topunishapersonbecausehehasdonewhatthelawplainly *&. allowshimtodoisadueprocessviolationofthemostbasicsort  ..."_Bordenkircher_Ԁv.Hayes,434U.S.357,363(1978) w (citationomitted).Itisthusaviolationofdueprocessto P penalizeacriminaldefendantforexercisinghisconstitutional  rights,seeUnitedStatesv.Jackson,390U.S.570,581(1968), o  orforpursuingastatutoryrightofappealorcollateralremedy,  H  NorthCarolinav.Pearce,395U.S.711,72324(1969).Seealso   UnitedStatesv._Mazzaferro_,865F.2d450,460(1stCir.1989). g  ( Thelawisclearbeyondperadventurethatasentencebasedon @  retaliationforexercisingtheconstitutionalrighttostandtrial  isinvalid)(_Bownes_,J.).#X6XXX6 #X6XXX6  _   Inevery_F.R.Cr.P._ԀRule11hearing,consistentwiththeSixth 8 Amendment,thedefendantisinformedthathehas arightto  pleadnotguiltyandtopersistinthatpleaifithasalready W beenmade,therighttoajurytrial...Rule11(c)(3).The 0 defendantisneverinformed,whatthetrialcourtsReportinthe  instantcasemakesclear,thatthecostofexercisingtherightto O  ajurytrialcouldwellresultinasentence500%to700%greater (" thanacodefendantnearlyasculpable.Berthoff,140_F.Supp_.2dat !$ 68,70,Addendumat36,39.#X6XXX6ㅨ# G#x&   Inthecaseatbar,Petitioner,sentencedaftertrialto $ !( twentyoneyears,couldwellhavereceiveda_U.S.S.G._Ԁ3E1.1 &"*  acceptanceofresponsibilitysentenceoftwelveyearsandseven ?(p$, monthsversusaGuidelineposttrialsentenceofseventeenyears )&. sixmonthstotwentyoneyearsandtenmonths.Addendumat8. +'0 Withcooperation,whichhadbeenafocalpointoftheplea  negotiations,Addendumat9,therelikelywouldhavebeena w furtherreductionbasedon_U.S.S.G._Ԁ5K1.1 substantial P assistancerecommendations.Thereislittlequestion,therefore,  thatPetitionersexerciseofhisconstitutionalrighttorequire o  thegovernmenttoproveitscaseagainsthimattrialcosthima  H  sentenceofatleast fivetoeightyearshigher thanifhehad   pleadguilty,simplybecausehewenttotrial.      PetitionerismindfulofotherdecisionsofthisHonorable 'X  Courtwhichhaveupheldtheconstitutionalityof_U.S.S.G._Ԁ3E1.1.  X6XXX6 Wenotethatalthough"[_t]he_Ԁguidelineadmittedlyimposesatough w choiceonadefendant...,itisnotunconstitutional...." P SeeUnitedStatesv._DeLe;n_ԀRuiz,47F.3d452,456(1stCir.1995)  (citationsomitted);#X6XXX6z#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv._Muoz_,36F.3d1229,1236 o 37(1stCir.1994).#X6XXX6&#X6XXX6 H #X6XXX6#X6XXX6  TheFirstCircuit,andothercourts,seee.g.#X6XXX6?#X6XXX6UnitedStates  v.Frazier,971F.2d1076(4thCir.1992#X6XXX6#X6XXX6);UnitedStates_v.Jones_, g  934F.2d1199,1200(11thCir.1991),havepredicatedtheir  @" reasoningontheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsdecisionsin#X6XXX6R#X6XXX6 !$ _Corbitt_Ԁv.NewJersey,439U.S.212,224,58L.Ed.2d466,99S. _#& Ct.492(1978)andBradyv.UnitedStates,397U.S.742,751,25 %8!( L.Ed.2d747,90S.Ct.1463(1970)thatthelawhasallowed &"* sentencingjudgestoshow leniency todefendantswhodemonstrate W($, contritionandacceptanceofresponsibilityfortheircrimes.The *H&. UnitedStatesSupremeCourthasalsoencouragedthepracticeof +'0 pleabargainingbystating:#X6XXX6{#X6XXX6"Althoughevery[pleabargain]hasa  discouragingeffectonthedefendant'sassertionofhistrial w rights,theimpositionofthesedifficultchoicesisaninevitable P attributeofanylegitimatesystemwhichtoleratesandencourages  thenegotiationofpleas."#X6XXX6#X6XXX6_Chaffin_Ԁv._Stynchcombe_,412U.S.17, o  3031,36L.Ed.2d714,93S.Ct.1977(1973).#X6XXX6㱺#X6XXX6  H    Ontheotherhand, #X6XXX6㢻#X6XXX6iftheonlyobjectiveofastatepractice   istodiscouragetheassertionofconstitutionalrightsitis g  patentlyunconstitutional")#X6XXX6"#X6XXX6Ԁ_Chaffin_Ԁv._Stynchcombe_#X6XXX6#X6XXX6at33n.20 @  citing S#X6XXX6㳽#X6XXX6Shapirov.Thompson,394U.S.618,631(1969).#X6XXX6F# SX6XXX6ԀPlea  bargainingnecessarilyentailshardnegotiationbetweenthe _ parties.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Whileitmaybethe governmentsposition to#X6XXX6㘿# XXXX6Ӏ.#X6XX X#X6XXX6encouragea 8 criminaldefendanttopleadguiltyandgiveuphisorherrightto ( trialbyofferingamorelenientsentenceifhepleadsguilty,or  eventhreateningharsherpunishmentifherefusestopleadguilty, Gx thatcannotbethelegitimateinterestofthejudicialsystem   thatunderourconstitutionguaranteesthefundamentalrightto   trial.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6ԀThecourtsmustbevigilantofwhetheraparticular state ? p" practiceviolatesaconstitutionallyprotectedright.Cf.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 !$ _Chaffin_Ԁv._Stynchcombe_#X6XXX6#X6XXX6supraat33n.20.#X6XXX6D#X6XXX6 #&   Although [a]criminaljusticesystemthattoleratesand 7%h!( encouragespleanegotiationsmustallow prosecutors toimpose &#* difficultchoicesondefendantseventhoughtheriskofmore ($, severepunishmentmaydiscourageadefendantfromassertinghis G*x&. trialrights,_Bordenkircher_,434U.S.atӀat364,#X6XXX6#X6XXX6emphasisadded, + (0 discouragingtrialscannotbethepracticeofthecourts  themselvesthatmustguaranteetheconstitutionalrighttotrial. w ЀAstheFirstCircuitandothercourtshave,however,noted: P _U.S.S.G_Ԁ3E1.1#X6XXX6.#X6XXX6"merely_codify[s_]atraditionofleniencyandare  notanimpermissibleburdenontheexerciseofconstitutional o  rights.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6#X6XXX6#X6XXX6ԀUnitedStatesv.Paz_Uribe_,891F.2d396,400(1st  H  Cir.1989);cert.denied110_S.Ct_.2216,109_L.Ed_.2d542   (1990),(upheldtheconstitutionalityof3E1.1againsta   challengebroughtundertheFifthAmendment)#X6XXX6#X6XXX6ԀSeealso#X6XXX6#X6XXX6United 'X  Statesv.Frazier,supra,971F.2d#X6XXX6*#X6XXX6Ԁat1084#X6XXX6#X6XXX6(#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 [_t]he_Ԁacceptanceof  responsibilityreductionessentiallycodifiesthejudicial w practiceofsentencingmorelenientlydefendantswhoevidence P contritionandcooperatewithlawenforcementauthorities).#X6XXX6C#X6XXX6   Petitionerrespectfullysubmitsthatsuchreasoningismisplaced o becauseitcausesthecourtstobeactiveparticipantsintheplea /` bargainingprocess,apracticeprohibitedby_F.R.Cr.P._Ԁ11(e)(1).   Ѐ #X6XXX6#X6XXX6  ThecodificationintheGuidelinesofthepleabargaining   practiceofadefendantreceivingasubstantialreductionin o " sentenceforsavingthegovernmenttheexpenseofatrial,comes "H$ withaheavyconstitutionalprice.Assuchpracticeisapplied #& inthecaseatbar,itamountstonothinglessthanpunishment g%!( forproceedingtotrial.Asthetrialcourtexplained: '@#* 0  Evidenceofsentencingdisparityvisitedonthosewho )%- exercisetheirSixthAmendmentrighttotrialbyjuryis _*&. todaystark,brutal,andincontrovertible.True,therewas 3+d'/ alwaysasentencingdiscountforthosewhopleadguiltyand ,8(0 turnstatesevidence.InthisDistrictthatdiscountused  torangefrom33%to45%.Today,undertheSentencing  Guidelinesregimewithitsvastshiftofpowertothe w executive,thatdisparityhaswidenedtoanincredible500%. K| ...P## 0  Notsurprisingly,suchdisparityimposesanextraordinary  burdenonthefreeexerciseoftherighttoanadjudication   ofguiltbyonespeers. CriminaltrialratesintheUnited o  StatesandinthisDistrictareplummetingduetothesimple O   factthatwepunishpeople!punishthemseverely!simplyfor / `  goingtotrial. Itisthesheerestsophistrytopretend  @  otherwise.Thisisnothingnew,ofcourse.Sugarcoatitas   wemaywithtermslike acceptanceofresponsibilityfor   thosewhocooperate,wehavealwayspunishedthosewhodemand   thatthegovernmentcarryitsconstitutionallymandated k  burdenofpersuasionbeyondareasonabledoubtbeforean ?p  Americanjury.D## 0  _Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.at6770,Addendum3540,citationsand  empiricalstudiesomitted,emphasisadded.  ##   ThegovernmentwilllikelyarguethatthisHonorableCourtin #T UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez,162F.3d135,15053(1stCir.1998)  hasalreadynotonlyaddressedtheissueoftheconstitutionality s ofsuchsentencingdisparity,butfoundthatsuchdisparityisa L permissibleandtraditionalroleoftheprosecutorialauthority;  #X6XXX65#X6XXX6thatitiswithinthe government'sdiscretiontochargesimilarly k! situateddefendantsdifferently.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Idat15052.ThisCourt !D# statedtherein: "% #X6XXX6h#X6XXX60  Thefactthatthosewhopleadgenerallyreceivemorelenient c$ ' treatment,oratleastagovernmentrecommendationofmore 7%h!( lenienttreatmentthanco-defendantswhogototrial,does  &<") notinandofitselfconstituteanunconstitutionalburdenon &#* one'srighttogototrialandproveitscase.See_Corbitt_Ԁv. '#+ NewJersey,439U.S.212,219(1978)(notingthatevery ($, burdenontheexerciseofaconstitutionalrightisnot [)%- invalidandthatthereisnoperseruleagainstencouraging /*`&. guiltypleas,evenwherethosepleaspromisethecertaintyof +4'/ alesserpenalty).Tobesure,thedifferentialwhich +(0 resultedhereexactsahighpricefromthosewhoexercise  theirconstitutionalrighttotrial,butthepriceisnot  highenoughtoconstituteaconstitutionalviolation.w##   #X6XXX6#X6XXX6"Rodriguez,however,isinappositetothepresentcasebecause $ itaddressedtheissueofsentencingdisparitycausedbythe    prosecutions differenttreatmentofcodefendantswhowereheld C t  culpableofdifferentquantitiesofdrugs.Thequantitywas  4  calculatedwhen#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁ thegovernment negotiatedpleabargainswithsome   ofthedefendantsandpromised,accordingto_U.S.S.G._Ԁ1B1.8(a), k  nottouseanyoftheinformationprovidedbycooperating D defendantsagainstthem._g #  2      _ԀThiscase,ontheotherhand,  addressesthetrialcourtssentencingdisparityofsimilarly c situatedcodefendantssolelycausedbyadefendantexercisinghis  < SixthAmendmentrighttotrial#X6XXX6d#X6XXX6.      Thegovernmentmayalsosuggestthat#X6XXX6L#X6XXX6ԀRobertsv.United [ States,445U.S.552,63L.Ed.2d622,100S.Ct.1358(1980), 4 furthersupportsitsargumentthatthereisnoSixthAmendment  violationbecausesaidcasefindsthatitisnotconstitutionally S! infirmforjudgestorewardaparticulardefendantsassistanceto  ,# thegovernmentwithlowersentences.AstheSeventhCircuitin "% UnitedStatesv._Klotz_943F.2d707,710(7thCir.1991)#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁnoted, K$| ' however, Robertsimpliesasentencingdifferentialofthesort  familiarinpleabargaining:onesentenceifthedefendantismum  (orinsistsontrial),alowersentenceifthedefendantsings(or 7h pleadsguilty).The_Klotz_decisionexplainsthatthedetermining  factorastowhetherthedifferentialinsentencingbetweenaplea   andtrialisarewardforcooperationorapenaltyforinvokinga / `  constitutionalright dependsonthebenchmark --the"normal"    sentencethatwouldbemetedoutifconstitutionalrightswerenot   salient.citingUnitedStatesv.Turner,864F.2d1394,1398-99 ?p  (7thCir.1989);UnitedStatesv.Long,823F.2d1209,1211-12 0 (7thCir.1987),emphasisadded.    Thetrialcourtherehasfoundthatthebenchmarkisviolated g bythe700%differencebetweenPetitionerssentence,whowentto @ trial,andthethreeyearsentenceofacodefendantwhopleadand  cooperated.Thetrialcourtemphasizedthatsuchdifferenceis _ simplytoogreataburdenon_Berthoff_sexerciseofhisSixth 8 Amendmentrighttotrialbyjury.#X6XXX6Z#X6XXX6_Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.at70,   Addendumat39#X6XXX6#X6XXX6. W "   Thegovernmentwillalsolikelyargue,basedonthetrial !0$ courtsfinding,idat57,Addendumat13,thatPetitionernever #& acceptedresponsibility,! #  3      ׀and,therefore,shouldnotreceivethe O%!( benefits,oranybenefitatall,forareductioninthetotal &(#* Guidelineoffenselevelhefacedaftertrialbasedonany   acceptanceofresponsibilitythat_U.S.S.G._Ԁ3E1.1allows.The w governmentspositionwillbethat #X6XXX6e#X6XXX6thisadjustmentisnot P intendedtoapplytoadefendantwhoputsthegovernmenttoits  burdenofproofattrialbydenyingtheessentialfactualelements o  ofguilt,isconvicted,andonlythenadmitsguiltandexpresses  H  remorse,UnitedStatesv._Baltas_,236F.3d27,236F.3d27(1st   Cir.2001).Itis,however,notthequestionofwhether_BERTHOFF_ g   acceptedresponsibilitybuttheactualapplicationofthat @  Guidelineprovision,_U.S.S.G._Ԁ3E1.1,alongwith substantial  assistancemotions,_U.S.S.G._Ԁ5K1.1,#X6XXX6g#X6XXX6Ԁthathavecausedthe _  sentencingdisparitiesamongsimilarlysituateddefendantswhich 8 giverisetotheviolationoftheSixthAmendmentthatis  addressedhere._Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.at67,Addendumat#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁ34, W fn.30. `   0   Equally,thegovernmentwilllikelyarguethatthetrial  courtsconcernovertheSixthAmendmenteffectsfrom fact O  bargainingarenotatissueherebecause factbargaininghas (" notplayedaroleinthiscase.Id.Suchanargumentignoresthe !$ factthat factbargainingisintertwinedinthegovernments G#x& negotiatingpracticeswhichgiverisetotheSixthAmendment $ !( violationofchillingtherightofadefendanttoexercisehisor ?(p$, herrighttoajurytrial.Asthetrialcourtdiscussed: )&. 0  [_B]ecause_Ԁcertainmaterial factssocallednow +'0 mathematicallydriveeverysentencingdecision,fact c,(1 bargainingistodaycentraltopleanegotiationinfederal  court.Everybodyknowsit.Prosecutorsanddefensecounsel  areknowinglyinvolvedinthisfraudandcourts!nowlargely w strippedofthepowerstomakefullyinformedsentencing K| decisions!tacitlyacquiescewhensatisfiedwiththe P negotiatedplea.Berthoff,140_F.Supp_.at6263,Add.at#X6XXX6y#X6XXX6 $ 26.##   Contrarytowellheldprosecutionbeliefs,itdoesnot C t  appearthatthetrialcourtwasdirectlyaccusingthegovernment    orthedefensewithmalfeasance,butratherexpressingan   indictmentofasystemwhichbyitsnatureencouragesa fraud ;l  thattreadssignificantlyontheSixthAmendmentrighttotrialby  jury.Footnote22oftheReportexplainsonebasisforthetrial  courts,perhapssomewhatcaustic,remarks. Factbargainingis 3d butan inevitableresultoftheCommissionsattempttolimit   chargebargaining.citingNagel,NegotiatedPleasUnderthe  FederalSentencingGuidelines:TheFirstFifteenMonths,27Am. +\ Crim.L.Rev.231,272(1989).SeealsoYellen,ProbationOfficers  LookatPleaBargaining,andDoNotlikeWhatTheySee,8Fed. { SentencingRep.339,340(1996).(...Congresshasnotprovided #T! correspondingresourcestotakemorecasestotrial.Theresult,  # itappears,isthatprosecutors(andsomedefensecounsel)have s"% evadedandmanipulatedtheguidelinesinordertoinducethepleas $L ' necessarytokeepthesystemafloat...Throughsuchanalysis,it %!) appearsclearthatthetrialcourtsconcernwith fact k'#+ bargainingwasprincipallytheeffectthatsuchpracticehason )D%- shiftingthepowertotheexecutivetomakesentencingdecisions *&/ andthehavocthatitreeksontheSixthAmendmentrighttotrial. c,(1 Berthoff,140_F.Supp_.at63,66,Addendumat25#X6XXX6#X6XXX6.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6    TheFirstCircuithasreadilyrecognizedthechangesthatthe w Guidelineshavecausedinpleanegotiations,statingthat:#X6XXX6# XXXX6 P 0  #X6XX Xݹ#X6XXX6BecausetheGuidelines,inrespecttodrugcases,base  sentencesforthemostpartupontheamountofdrugs   possessed,"chargetype"pleabargains,seeFed.R._Crim_.P. o  11(e)(1)(A),maynolongerproveofmuchvaluetodefendants C t  indrugcases...Butthatfactdoesnotmakepleabargaining  H  futile;itsimplymeansthatthegovernmentandthe    defendant,shouldtheywishtobargaininacaselikethis   one,shouldbargainaboutsentence"recommendation,"seeFed.   R._Crim_.P.11(e)(1)(B),or"aspecificsentence,"seeFed. g  R._Crim_.P.11(e)(1)(C).Eventhoughtheprosecutorneednot ;l  agreetoanysuchbargain,andeventhoughthecourtmay @  rejectanysuchbargainasitcanrejectanyandallplea  bargains,seeFed.R.Crim.P.11(e)(2)theGuidelines'  structuredoesnotinhibittheselattertypesofbargains..## 0  UnitedStatesv.Wright,873F.2d437,44041(1stCir.1989) 3d (_Breyer,J_)8## #X6XXX6.#X6XXX6  Thetrialcourtalsoclearlyrecognizedthat: [_a]ll_Ԁplea  negotiations,ofcourse,necessarilyinvolveanassessmentofthe +\ strengthsandweaknessesofacase,thecredibilityofwitnesses,  theirvulnerabilitytoimpeachment,theirbasic_presentability_, { andahostofrelateddetails.Itisnotthosenegotiationsthat #T! interferewiththeSixthAmendmentrighttotrial,butrather:  # 0  [Thepracticeof]ignoringaquantityofdrugsorthe s"% possessionoruseofafirearmreasonablyattributedtoa G#x& defendant...[or]theexecrablepracticeoftakingtwo $L ' similarlysituateddefendantsandreducingthedrugquantity $ !( fortheonewhoiswillingtopleadbutattributingthefull %!) drugquantitytotheonewhogoestotrial.&"*## mӀ#X6XXX6#X6XXX6_Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.at62,Addendumat24,fn.19.#X6XXX6#X6XXX6Ԁ#X6XXX6]#X6XXX6 k'#+ #X6XXX6#X6XXX6  While factbargainingdidnotoccurinthepresentcase,it *&/ isthedisparityinsentencescausedbysuchgeneral practices, c,(1 and,asmorespecificallyrelatedhereto,theapplicationof  Guidelineprovisionssuchas acceptanceofresponsibilityand w  substantialassistancewhichdirectlyinterferewith P PetitionersSixthAmendmentrights.Thetrialcourtexpressly  acknowledgedthatthe700%sentencingdisparitybetween o  Petitionerssentenceandthatofoneofhiscodefendantswas  H   toogreataburdenon_Berthoff_sexerciseofhisSixthAmendment   righttotrialbyjuryandthatasentenceoffifteen g  years...wouldbemorejust.Plainly,andsimply,Petitioner,was @  punishedforexercisinghisrighttotrial._Berthoff_,140_F.Supp_.  at61,70,Addendumat23,39.#X6XXX6# XXXX6 _ #X6XX X#X6XXX6  OneneedlooknofurtherthantheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt 8 rulingin#X6XXX6#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv.Jackson,390U.S.570(1968)forsupport  thattheseverepunishmentfor_BERTHOFF_Ԁexercisinghisrightto W trialisaviolationoftheSixthAmendment.Thatcaseinvolved 0 #X6XXX6# X6XXX6theFederalKidnapingActunderwhichadefendantwhoabandoned  hisrighttocontesthisguiltbeforeajurywasassuredthathe O  wouldnotbeexecuted,however,ifhechosea (" jurytrialhecouldbesubjectedtocapitalpunishment.The G#x& SupremeCourtstated: $ !( #X6XXX6,# X6XXX60  OurproblemistodecidewhethertheConstitutionpermitsthe &"* establishmentofsuchadeathpenalty,applicableonlyto k'#+ thosedefendantswhoasserttherighttocontesttheirguilt ?(p$, beforeajury.Theinevitableeffectofanysuchprovision )D%- is,ofcourse,todiscourageassertionoftheFifthAmendment )&. rightnottopleadguiltyandtodeterexerciseoftheSixth *&/ Amendmentrighttodemandajurytrial.#X6XXX6# X6XXX6Iftheprovisionhad +'0 nootherpurposeoreffectthantochilltheassertionof c,(1 hW he h  constitutionalrightsbypenalizingthosewhochooseto  exercisethem,thenitwouldbepatentlyunconstitutional#X6XXX6N#X6XXX6 ...  @#  @#   Id.at#X6XXX6 #X6XXX6,58283.#X6XXX6V!#X6XXX6 ##    Thegovernmentwilllikelyassertthattherearelegitimate  purposes,laudablegoals,behindtheGuidelinesentencing   provisionsof acceptanceofresponsibilityand substantial / `  assistance.Tobesure,thebackgroundnoteto_U.S.S.G._Ԁ3E1.1    indicatesthatsaid sectionrecognizeslegitimatesocietal   interests,andthenotesto_U.S.S.G._Ԁ5K1.1indicatesthat_that_ 'X  section hasbeenrecognizedinpracticeandbystatuteasa  mitigatingsentencingfactor.But,asstatedinJackson,id.: w #X6XXX6!#X6XXX60  WhatevermightbesaidofCongress'objectives,theycannot P bepursuedbymeansthatneedlesslychilltheexerciseof $ basicconstitutionalrights.Cf.UnitedStatesv._Robel_,389  U.S.258[1967];_Shelton_Ԁv.Tucker,364U.S.479,488-489  [1960].Thequestionisnotwhetherthechillingeffectis o "incidental"ratherthanintentional;thequestioniswhether Ct thateffectisunnecessaryandthereforeexcessive.#X6XXX6M%#X6XXX6 H## l%   `    PetitionerisalsomindfulofthisHonorableCourtsanalysis  in #X6XXX6(#X6XXX6UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez,supra,162F.3dat15053#X6XXX6 )#X6XXX6 , rejecting S! thatcasesanalogytoJackson, because#X6XXX6)#X6XXX6_Corbitt_Ԁv.NewJersey, !D# suprahaddistinguishedJacksononthebasisthatJacksonwasa "% deathpenaltycase"whichisuniqueinitsseverityand c$ ' _irrevocability_."_Corbitt_,439U.S.at217(quotingGreggv.  &<") Georgia,428U.S.153(1976)).Butsee_Chaffin_Ԁv._Stynchombe_, '#+ supra,fn.30,#X6XXX6>*#X6XXX6 JacksonandPearce[ S#X6XXX6,#X6XXX6NorthCarolinav.Pearce,395 [)%- U.S.711(1969)]#X6XXX6f-# XXXX6Ԁ S#X6XX X-#X6XXX6 areclearandsubsequentcaseshavenotdulled *'/ theirforce ,#X6XXX6Y.# XXXX6#X6XX X.#X6XXX6emphasisadded.#X6XXX67/#X6XXX6Ԁ#X6XXX6/#X6XXX6    PetitionerrespectfullysuggeststhatJacksonslimitonthe   excessivechillingofthe #X6XXX6/#X6XXX6exerciseofbasicconstitutional g rights#X6XXX60#X6XXX6Ԁtotrialbyjury,couldnotbemoreapplicablethantothe  @ caseatbar.Herethetrialcourthasdocumentedsubstantial   evidencethatnotonlyhasthisPetitionersufferedexcessive _   punishmentforsimplygoingtotrial,atleastfivetoeight 8  years,butalsoevidenceofacontinuingdeclineinjurytrial   ratesbasedonthegovernmental practiceofpleanegotiationand W  theapplicationofthecourtsGuidelinesentencingpolicies, 0 which practicesdirectlyimpingeuponthefreeexerciseofthe  SixthAmendmentrighttotrial.Petitionersdisparatesentence O hadnothingtodowitharefusaltoacceptaprosecution plea ( bargain,ithadtodowithhisdecisiontoexercisehisrightto  ajurytrialandtheresultingGuidelinesentence. Gx   Therefore,asfoundbythetrialcourt,Petitionerhasbeen   deniedhisSixthAmendmentrighttotrialbyjurybecausethecost   ofexercisinghisfundamentalrighttochallengethegovernments ? p" factualproofwastoautomaticallybepunishedmoreseverelythan !$ hiscodefendantswhochosetopleaguilty. #& Ѐ II._APPRENDI_APPLIESRETROACTIVELYTOCASESONCOLLATERALREVIEW &#* WITHRESPECTTOFIRST28U.S.C.2255OR2254PETITIONS#X6XXX651# '#+  6X6XXX6   ThereislittledisputethatApprendiestablishes"anew G*x&. ruleofconstitutionallaw.see28U.S.C.2255,para.8(2).#X6XXX68#X6XXX6i #  4         Also, #X6XXX68#X6XXX6Ԁ SNoonecoulddoubtthat_Apprendi_"newly"or"initially" w recognizesaconstitutionalright._Apprendi_caused[theSeventh 8 Circuit]tooverrulenumerouscases,asignthatsomethingnovel  occurred.Ashleyv.UnitedStates,266F.3d671,672(7thCir. ' X 2001).#X6XXX69# XXXX6     S#X6XX X;#X6XXX6  In_Apprendi_,theSupremeCourtannouncedanewconstitutional   ruleofcriminalprocedurebyholdingthat"[_o]ther_Ԁthanthefact Bs  ofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyfora   crimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedto  thejury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt."120_S.Ct_.at :k 2362-63.TheSupremeCourt'snewruleradicallydepartedfrom  priortreatmentofthequantityofdrugsasasentencingfactor  ratherthanasanelementoftheoffense.Seee.g.UnitedStates 2c v._Neuhausser_,241F.3d460,464-65(6thCir.2001).#X6XXX6O<#X6XXX6     A1yearlimitationperiodshallapplytoamotionunder  thissection.Thelimitationshallrunfromthelatestof..(3) *[  thedateonwhichtherightassertedwasinitiallyrecognizedby " theSupremeCourt,ifthatrighthasbeennewlyrecognizedbythe z!$ SupremeCourtandmaderetroactivelyapplicabletocaseson "#S& collateralreview.28U.S.C.2255para6. $ (   InNovember2000,Petitioner,whilehisPetitionwason r&"* remandtodeterminetheissueonwhichtheoriginalcertificateof (K$, _appealability_Ԁwasissued,filedhisSecondSupplemental  Memorandum,addressinghis_Apprendi_claim,wellwithoneyearfrom w thedateofsaid newlyrecognizedrule. P S K S#X6XXX6@#X6XXX6Ԁ_Petitoner_Ԁwassentencedtotwentyoneyearsinprisonforan  K offensethatcouldhavebeenlimitedtofiveyearsifnoamount   wasdeterminedbythejury,21U.S.C.841(b)(1)(D)(1994).#X6XXX6hD#X6XXX6While : k  thetrialcourtinitsReportrejectedtheclaimastimebarred   becausethecourtfeltthat thenewlimitationsperiodshouldrun Z  fromthedateonwhicheithertheSupremeCourtorthecontrolling   circuitcourtholdstherighttoberetroactiveoncollateral z review,Addendumat1920,#X6XXX6E#X6XXX6ԀrecentSeventhCircuitauthority  ; suggeststhat:#X6XXX6G#X6XXX6 permittingadistrictorappellatecourttomake  theretroactivitydecisionforaninitialpetitionmaybe *[ essentialtoputthequestionbeforetheSupremeCourtforfinal  resolution.Ashleyv.UnitedStates,266F.3d#X6XXX6 H#X6XXX6Ԁat673. J{ #X6XXX6sI# SX6XXX6ԀOntheotherhand,thegovernmentwilllikelyarguethat -^ paragraph6(3)ofsection2255ofTitle28isessentiallythesame   asparagraph8(2)ofsaidsectionandthusonlytheSupremeCourt }" canmakethe newruleofconstitutionallawretroactive,see %!V$ Tylerv.Cain,121S.Ct.2478#X6XXX6I#X6XXX6Ԁ2482(2001).InthatSupremeCourt "& decision,#X6XXX6K#X6XXX6Ԁdealingwiththeretroactivityissueasitrelatedto u$ ( secondorsuccessivepetitions,theCourtexplained,thatanew &N"* ruleisnot"maderetroactivetocasesoncollateralreview" '#, unlesstheCourtitselfholdsittoberetroactive.#X6XXX6@L#X6XXX6ԀTheCourt m)%. furtherexplaineditsrationale:@77+7 +F'0 0  TheSupremeCourtdoesnot"make"aruleretroactivewhenit  merelyestablishesprinciplesofretroactivityandleavesthe  applicationofthoseprinciplestolowercourts.Insuchan w event,anylegalconclusionthatisderivedfromthe K| principlesisdevelopedbythelowercourt(orperhapsbya P combinationofcourts),notbytheSupremeCourt.Id.$## #X6XXX6M#/N  Anysuchargumentbythegovernmentwouldnotonlyignorethe o  distinctivelanguageofparagraph6(3),X6XXX6( S Totreatthefirst  H  formulationasidenticaltothesecondisnotfaithfultothe   differenceinlanguage.Byomittingtherestrictioncontainedin 7h  para.8(2),para.6(3)impliesthatcourtsofappealsanddistrict   courtsmay"make"theretroactivitydecision.Ashleyv.United W States,266F.3d#X6XXX6P#X6XXX6Ԁat673)#X6XXX6R# S;italsomaynotcomportwiththeholding  inTyler.    X6XXX60  JusticeO'Connor,whosuppliedthecrucialfifthvoteforthe 7h majority,wroteaconcurringopinion,andherreasoningadds  < toourunderstandingoftheimpactofTyler.Sheexplains  thatitispossiblefortheCourtto"make"acase  retroactiveoncollateralreviewwithoutexplicitlyso  stating,aslongastheCourt'sholdings logicallypermitno [ otherconclusionthanthattheruleisretroactive.Id.at /` 2486(O'Connor,J.,concurring).Inotherwords,contraryto 4 thegovernment'sposition,justbecausetheCourthasnever   specificallyconsideredtheretroactivityof_Apprendi_Ԁdoes ! notforeclosethepossibilitythattheCourthas made " _Apprendi_retroactiveoncollateralreview.#X6XXX6S# S ### S   UnitedStatesv.Turner,267F.3d225,228(3rdCir.2001)  "8%   Whether_Apprendi_isretroactivetocasesoncollateralreview %!) necessitatesapplicationoftheSupremeCourtsholdingin_Teague_ /'`#+ _v.Lane_,489U.S.288(1989). SX6XXX6Threecourtsofappealshaveheld, (%- basedonsaidanalysis,thatitisnotretroactive.UnitedStates g*&/ v.Moss,252F.3d993,1000(8thCir.2001);UnitedStatesv. +((1 Sanders,247F.3d139,14651(4thCir.2001);Jonesv.Smith,231  F.3d1227,1238(9thCir.2000)(Onlyasitrelatestodiscrepancies _ betweentheinformationandjuryinstructions).#X6XXX61Z# XXXX6  SBs #X6XX X@\#X6XXX6In_Teague_Ԁv. Bs Lane,theSupremeCourtestablishedathreestepinquiryto  determinewhennewrulesofcriminalprocedureshouldbe b  retroactivelyappliedoncollateralreview.See489U.S.at288.  #  First,thecourtmustdeterminethedateonwhichthedefendant's   convictionbecamefinal.Second,thecourtmustdecidewhetherthe C  SupremeCourt'srulingindeedconstitutesa"newrule"of   constitutionalcriminalprocedure.Third,iftheruleisnew,then 2c itdoesnotapplyretroactivelyunlessitfallswithinoneofthe  twonarrowexceptions,towit:#X6XXX6\#X6XXX61)newruleswhichforbid"criminal R punishmentofcertainprimaryconduct"and2)newruleswhich  prohibit acertaincategoryofpunishmentforaclassof r defendantsbecauseoftheirstatusoroffense.#X6XXX6_# XXXX6Ԁ#X6XX X[a#X6XXX6Inthatthereis 3 littlequestionthatanewrulehasbeenadopted,itisonlythe  second_Teague_exceptioninthethirdstepoftheinquirywhich "S  wouldbeapplicableto_Apprendi_retroactivityissueaddressed " here.#X6XXX6a# XXXX6 B s$ #X6XX XRc#X6XXX6  Toqualifyunderthesecondexception,thenewrulemustbe %"V& suchthat,withoutit,"thelikelihoodofanaccurateconviction #( isseriouslydiminished."_Teague_,489U.S.at313.#X6XXX6c# XXXX6Ԁ#X6XX Xe#X6XXX6Essentially, E%v!* thenewruleof_Apprendi_must alterourunderstandingofthe &#, bedrockproceduralelementsessentialtothefairnessofa e($. proceeding"ifitistoqualifyforretroactivity.SeeSawyerv. )&&0 Smith,497U.S.227,242(1990).#X6XXX6He# XXXX6 +'2   #X6XX Xg#X6XXX6Althoughothercircuits,assetforthabove,haveruled  against_Apprendi_sretroactiveapplication,andtheSeventh _ CircuitinAshley,suprahasremandedtothedistrictcourtto   decidetheissuesothattheissuecanbefullydeveloped,  PetitionerrespectfullysubmitsthatthisHonorableCourtshould  @ holdthat_Apprendi_shouldbeappliedretroactivelytofirsthabeas    petitions.Theholdingof_Apprendi_,addressessuchafundamental / `  principleoffairness,thesentencingofadefendant beyondthe   statutorymaximum, thatsuchsentencingcanonlybebasedonfacts O  thatareprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.    JusticeStevens,writingforthemajority,explainedthe  fundamentalprinciplebehindthedecision: R 0  Atstakeinthiscaseare constitutionalprotectionsof 5f surpassingimportance :theproscriptionofanydeprivationof . libertywithout"dueprocessoflaw,"Amdt.14,andthe  guaranteethat"[i]nallcriminalprosecutions,theaccused  shallenjoytherighttoaspeedyandpublictrial,byan U impartialjury,"_Amdt_.6.% , %,mTakentogether,theserights N indisputablyentitleacriminaldefendantto"ajury  determinationthat[he]isguiltyofeveryelementofthe  crimewithwhichheischarged,beyondareasonabledoubt." u  UnitedStatesv._Gaudin_,515U.S.506,510(1995);seealso =n! Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,278(1993);_Winship_,397 6" _U. S_.,at364("[T]heDueProcessClauseprotectstheaccused # againstconvictionexceptuponproofbeyondareasonable  $ doubtofeveryfactnecessarytoconstitutethecrimewith ]!% whichheischarged").#X6XXX6kg#X6XXX6Ԁ#X6XXX6Aq# SX6XXX6_Apprendi_530U.S.466,47677(2000) %"V& emphasisadded."*'## #X6XXX6q# XXXX6k  #X6XX Xr#X6XXX6AlsoJusticeThomas,inhisconcurringopinionin #X6XXX6r#X6XXX6 _Apprendi_, $ ) furtherexplainedthehistoricalprescription #X6XXX6^s#X6XXX6 forsuchafinding: m&"+ 0  Inorderforanaccusationofacrime(whetherbyindictment (F$- orsomeotherform)tobeproperunderthecommonlaw,and (%. thusproperunderthecodificationofthecommon-lawrights )%/ intheFifthandSixthAmendments,itmustallegeall *&0 elementsofthatcrime;likewise,inorderforajurytrial e+'1 ofacrimetobeproper,allelementsofthecrimemustbe 9,j(2 provedtothejury(and,underWinship,provedbeyonda  reasonabledoubt). SeeJ.Story,Commentariesonthe  Constitution928-929,pp.660-662,934,p.664(1833);J.## 0  _Archbold_,PleadingandEvidenceinCriminalCases*41, W *99-*100(5thAm.ed.1846)#X6XXX6t# XXXX6.et#X6XX X)x#X6XXX6Idat499500,fnomitted,+\##   JusticeThomasalsoemphasizedthedecisionsimportance:  D 0   [The_Apprendi_]decision,farfrombeingasharpbreakwith   thepast,marksnothingmorethanareturntothestatusquo    ante-- thestatusquothatreflectedtheoriginalmeaningof c   theFifthandSixthAmendment. #X6XXX6x#X6XXX6PyӀId.at518,emphasisadded.#X6XXX6z# XXXX6C t ## #X6XX Xl{# XXXX6  #X6XX X{#Thesubstantialhistoricalandconstitutionalprecedent   explainedbyboththemajorityandconcurringopinionsmakesit  difficulttoarguethattheruleannouncedinthe_Apprendi_ 3d decisionisanythingless thanX6XXX6bedrockproceduralelements   essentialtothefairnessofaproceeding"SeeSawyerv.Smith,  497U.S.at242.#X6XXX6d}# XXXX6 +\   #X6XX XH~#X6XXX6Petitioner,therefore,respectfullysubmits#X6XXX6~#Ԁthatthis  HonorableCourtshouldfindthat_Apprendi_isretroactivetofirst { habeaspetitions. #T   @&7CONCLUSION $ '    Mr._BERTHOFF_,therefore,respectfullysubmitsthatforeach +(\$+ ofthereasonssetforthabove,thedistrictcourterredin )&- denyingthePetitionforWritofHabeasCorpusonthebasisthat {+'/ P@  P  P  hewasdeniedhisSixthAmendmentrighttotrialbyjuryinthat  hewasseverelypunishedforexercisingthatright._Pettioner_Ԅ w Appellantfurthersubmitsthat_Apprendi_shouldapplyretroactively P tohiscurrentPetition.Appellant,therefore,respectfully  requeststhatthisHonorableCourttoremandthemattertothe o  districtcourtanddirectthecourttogranttheWritconsistent  H  withsuchfindings.   __@3 3 7 CertificateofCompliancewithFormattingRules  @    Belowsignedcounsel,herebycertifiesthatincompliance  withRules28and32(a)(7)oftheFederalRulesofAppellate w Procedurethewithinbriefcontains7799words. P    `     h Dated:January9,2002Respectfullysubmitted, o    `    BOURBEAU&BONILLA H    `    By:MICHAELC._BOURBEAU_,_BBO_Ԁ#545908 ;l! ЀAttorneysforAppellant  @" Ѐ_FREDRIC_ԀW._BERTHOFF_  # X6XXX6@ !7XX6 ADDENDUMPURSUANTTO )0&. @%7LOCALRULE28  +'/ OP! O g O  @;;#7#X6X2# TABLEOFCONTENTS  { ̀ 4 TrialcourtsReport......................168   ̀#X6XXX6#X6XXX6 S  SecondSupplementalMemorandum..................69 ' X  ̀   `    #X6XXX6 #@ 7 CertificateofService      x  .L*2 Ї  I,MICHAELC.BOURBEAU,herebycertifythatIhavecausedto  beservedtwocopiesofthewithinbriefupon  _AUSA_ԀX6XXX6Kevin_OReagan_, K| 1550MainStreet,Rm.533 P Springfield,MA01103#X6XXX63#, $ thisdatebymailingsaidbriefbyfirstclassmailtoeachsaid   person. o  Dated:0 ` January,2002____________________________ H ` #` # ЀMICHAELC.BOURBEAU       `     h