United States v. Vasquez , 513 F. App'x 774 ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT March 20, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-8088
(D.C. Nos. 1:11-CV-00240-CAB and
v. 1:09-CR-00359-WFD-2)
(D. Wyo.)
RICHARD VASQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Richard Vasquez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1 seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we deny his request for a COA and dismiss this matter.
*This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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 Mr. Vasquez proceeds pro se, his “pleadings are to be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). We
cannot, however, “take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in
constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id.I. BACKGROUND
In September 2009, the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (“DCI”)
used a confidential informant to buy methamphetamine from Scott Hoffman. Further
investigation led investigators to believe that Mr. Vazquez was Mr. Hoffman’s source.
On October 17, 2009, the DCI obtained and executed a warrant to search Mr. Vasquez’s
home. Agents found six pistols and a rifle, plastic bags, small amounts of cocaine and
marijuana, a scale, and a spoon that tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine.
After the search, a DCI special agent interviewed Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez
admitted that he had cocaine in his home, but not marijuana or methamphetamine, and
that he had shared, but not sold, cocaine and methamphetamine.
On November 18, 2009, Mr. Vasquez was indicted for conspiracy to traffic in
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). On
December 3, 2009, he pled not guilty.
On March 8, 2010, Mr. Vasquez’s jury trial began. After Mr. Vasquez’s statement
to the DCI agent was admitted into evidence, defense counsel moved to suppress the
statement as involuntary. The district court denied the motion, holding that the motion
was untimely and that Mr. Vasquez had not established good cause for failing to file the
motion before trial or for failing to raise an issue regarding voluntariness before the
statement was introduced.
On March 12, 2010, the jury found Mr. Vasquez guilty. On June 2, 2010, the
district court sentenced Mr. Vasquez to 156 months in prison. On June 8, 2010, the
-2-
district court entered its judgment.
On June 10, 2010, Mr. Vasquez filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the district
court erred in (1) denying his untimely motion to suppress his statement to the DCI agent,
(2) denying his motion to suppress evidence of possession of cocaine and marijuana, and
(3) admitting statements of his co-conspirators. He also argued that he had received
ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the court had a sufficient record to review this
claim on direct appeal. On March 11, 2011, Mr. Vasquez filed a motion to drop the
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. On April 25, 2011, we affirmed his conviction
and sentence and granted the motion to withdraw the ineffective assistance of counsel
claim.
On July 11, 2011, Mr. Vasquez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district
court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He argued that (1) he was not mentally
competent to stand trial because of organic brain damage; (2) his memory problems made
it impossible for him to remember his due process rights during his interrogation; and (3)
he was denied equal protection of the law as a mentally disabled person because he did
not have a hearing to determine if he was competent to stand trial.
On November 29, 2012, the district court entered an order denying Mr. Vasquez’s
§ 2255 motion. The district court noted that Mr. Vasquez could have and failed to raise
any of his § 2255 claims on direct appeal. It then discussed whether Mr. Vasquez had
shown cause for failing to raise the claims. See United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d
1149, 1159 (10th Cir. 2012) (“When a defendant fails to raise an issue on direct appeal,
-3-
he is barred from raising it in a § 2255 motion unless he can show cause excusing his
procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the errors of which he complains,
or can show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if his claim is not
addressed.” (quotations omitted)).
The district court noted that (1) Mr. Vasquez’s excuse for failing to raise the
mental incompetence claim was that he “did not know better,” (2) his excuse for not
raising the interrogation claim was that he was “[n]ot [c]apable,” and (3) he made no
excuse for not raising the equal protection claim. ROA at 82-83. The court concluded
that these excuses did not demonstrate sufficient cause to excuse Mr. Vasquez’s failure to
raise the claims and that the claims were therefore procedurally barred. It also denied a
COA.
II. DISCUSSION
Mr. Vasquez may not appeal the district court’s decision without a certificate of
appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); Clark v.
Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 713 (10th Cir. 2006). We may issue 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 meet this standard, Mr. Vasquez must show that “reasonable
jurists would find” that the district court’s resolution of any constitutional claim was
either “debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
When a district court dismisses a § 2255 application on procedural grounds, we
will issue a COA only if the applicant shows that it is “debatable whether the petition
-4-
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and
the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not
conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner
should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.
Mr. Vasquez argues that ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be raised for
the first time in a § 2255 proceeding and that it was his counsel’s fault that the
procedurally barred claims were not raised on direct appeal. But Mr. Vasquez did not
make this ineffective assistance claim in his § 2255 application before the district court,
and he “has not provided a ‘reason to deviate from the general rule that we do not address
arguments presented for the first time on appeal.’” United States v. Moya, 676 F.3d
1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th
Cir. 2002)).
Mr. Vasquez does not otherwise address the district court’s conclusion that his
claims are procedurally barred. Because he has not demonstrated that “jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling,”
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, he has not satisfied the COA standard.
-5-
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Mr. Vasquez’s COA application and dismiss
this matter. Mr. Vasquez’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-6-