United States v. Fuentes ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 27 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 04-2175
v. (D. New Mexico)
DAVID WAYNE FUENTES, (D.C. Nos. CIV-03-987 JP/DJS
and CR-01-214 JP)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before KELLY, HENRY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
David Wayne Fuentes, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s decision denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Mr.
Fuentes also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal. For
substantially the same reasons set forth in the Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition issued by the magistrate judge and adopted by the
district court, we conclude that Mr. Fuentes is not entitled to a COA and is not
entitled to proceed IFP.
Mr. Fuentes’ § 2255 motion arises out of his conviction on two counts of
possessing a firearm after former conviction of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He now argues that, because his former New Mexico felony
conviction was more than ten years old, New Mexico law does not prohibit him
from possessing firearms. Mr. Fuentes invokes N.M. Stat. § 30-7-16C(2), which
provides that it is unlawful for a felon to possess a firearm but defines a felon as
“a person convicted of a felony offense by a court of the United States or of any
state or political subdivision thereof and . . . less than ten years have passed since
the person completed his sentence or period of probation for the felony
conviction, whichever is later.”
According to Mr. Fuentes, because New Mexico law does not bar his
possession of a firearm, the federal firearms convictions violate his Ninth and
Tenth Amendment rights. He further argues that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights because his
counsel did not challenge his convictions on these grounds.
To appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2255 petition, Mr. Fuentes
must obtain a COA by making “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Fuentes may make this
showing by demonstrating that “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El v.
-2-
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)). “[A] claim can be debatable even though every jurist of reason
might agree, after the COA has been granted and the case has received full
consideration, that [the] petitioner will not prevail.” Id. Moreover, because he
seeks to proceed IFP in this appeal, Mr. Fuentes must also demonstrate a financial
inability to pay the required fees and “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the
law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” McIntosh v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
For substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge, we
conclude that Mr. Fuentes is not entitled to a COA and is not entitled to proceed
IFP. The fact that New Mexico law does not forbid possession of firearms by
those convicted of felonies more than ten years ago does not preclude the federal
government from doing so. See United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th
Cir. 1994) (“[I]f the defendant has been convicted of a felony under state law and
has not had his civil rights restored for that offense, then the defendant can
properly be convicted for possession of [an item prohibited by federal law] under
§ 922 (g)(1) regardless of whether that same possession is prohibited under the
state’s law.”) (emphasis added). Additionally, the federal firearms statutes
barring possession of firearms by felons do not violate the Ninth or Tenth
-3-
Amendments. See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000)
(rejecting the defendant’s contention that the federal firearms statutes violate the
Ninth Amendment): United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394, 404 (6th Cir. 2000)
(concluding that “the Tenth Amendment . . . is not violated by a federal statute
that outlaws a felon’s possession of firearms” because “the statute is not directed
at states as such, but at individual behavior”). Moreover, as the magistrate judge
observed, Mr. Fuentes was also convicted of a felony in Texas state court, and
that conviction also supports his convictions under § 922(g)(1).
Finally, because Mr. Fuentes Ninth and Tenth Amendment challenges lack
merit, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise them.
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate
judges’ Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, we DENY Mr.
Fuentes’s application for a COA and his motion to proceed IFP, and DISMISS
this appeal.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-