United States v. Suniga , 601 F. App'x 758 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 4, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 14-5141
(D.C. Nos. 4:13-CV-00630-GKF-PJC and
EVERETT LEE SUNIGA, 4:10-CR-00086-GKF-2)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Everett Suniga, a federal prisoner appearing pro se,1 seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion. We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.
App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
Because Suniga is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
I
Suniga pled guilty to a methamphetamine-related charge, and his sentence was
affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Suniga, 467 F. App’x 798, 799 (10th Cir.
2012) (unpublished). As part of his plea agreement, Suniga waived the right to
collaterally attack his sentence, except by way of an ineffective assistance claim that
challenged the validity of the plea or the waiver agreement. Suniga subsequently
submitted a § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence that alleged, among other things,
ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea process. The district court
determined that Suniga’s claims were barred by his waiver, and that, even were they
not barred, Suniga failed to show that either the plea or the waiver was invalid. It
denied a COA.
II
We will grant a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a
showing, Suniga must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted).
“A plea agreement waiver of postconviction rights does not waive the right to
bring a § 2255 petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims challenging
the validity of the plea or the waiver.” United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179,
-2-
1187 (10th Cir. 2001). Even if we assume that Suniga’s claims fall within the
Cockerham exception, they fail to meet the requirements for relief.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), establishes that Suniga’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim can only succeed if his counsel’s performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and he suffered prejudice as a
result. Id. at 687-88, 694. Suniga offers no factual allegations indicating that his
counsel’s performance in securing a plea agreement was objectively unreasonable or
that there was a reasonable probability that the government or the court would have
accepted any alternative proposal. See United States v. Boone, 62 F.3d 323, 327
(10th Cir. 1995) (“Without any showing that . . . such plea would have been
acceptable to the court, or that the resulting sentence would have been different than
that imposed . . . all that the Defendant urges is speculation.”). He additionally
claims the district court should have scheduled an evidentiary hearing, but we see no
basis for concluding that such a hearing would have advanced his argument. Cf.
United States v. Moya, 676 F.3d 1211, 1214 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Given the conclusory
nature of Defendant’s allegations, the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing
was not an abuse of discretion.”).
-3-
III
We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Suniga’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-