Ledesma v. United States , 46 F. App'x 604 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 10 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 01-8085
(D.C. Nos. 01-CV-102-J,
LUIS CISNEROS LEDESMA, 97-CR-132-02-J)
(D. Wyoming)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. **
Defendant-Appellant Luis Cisneros Ledesma, a federal inmate appearing
pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Because Mr. Ledesma has not “made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny a COA and dismiss the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance 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.
appeal.
The background of Mr. Ledesma’s activities and the trial leading to his
conviction can be found in his direct appeal. United States v. Ledesma, 203 F.3d
836, 2000 WL 155591 (10th Cir. Feb. 14, 2000) (table). After pleading guilty to
one count of unlawful reentry into the United States after having been deported, 8
U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), Mr. Ledesma was convicted by a jury of one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of
methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Mr. Ledesma was
sentenced to a concurrent sentence totaling 240 months, a $4,000 fine, and a $200
special assessment.
Mr. Ledesma filed his § 2255 petition in the district court, claiming that his
conviction should be vacated because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because the indictment failed to specify the quantity of
methamphetamine; and (2) the sentencing judge determined the quantity of
methamphetamine instead of the jury, thus violating the rule of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The district court rejected these arguments on the
following grounds: (1) Mr. Ledesma did not raise the issues in his direct appeal,
and failed to show cause and resulting prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of
justice to overcome the procedural bar; and (2) even if he had not defaulted, Mr.
Ledesma’s sentence was within the twenty year statutory maximum and, therefore,
-2-
Apprendi was not violated.
We agree with the district court. 1 In United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213,
1219 (10th Cir. 2002), we held that Apprendi is not applicable retroactively to
initial habeas petitions. We add that even if the indictment should have included
drug quantity, it does not deprive a court of jurisdiction. United States v. Cotton,
122 S. Ct. 1781, 1783–85. Further, the Supreme Court held that no constitutional
violation occurs where a judge finds “a fact increasing the mandatory minimum
(but not extending the sentence beyond the statutory maximum) . . . .” Harris v.
United States, 122 S. Ct. 2406, 2414 (2002). In such a circumstance, “the jury’s
verdict has authorized the judge to impose the minimum with or without the
finding.” Id. Here, the jury’s verdict, even without a finding regarding
methamphetamine quantity, allowed the district court to sentence Mr. Ledesma
within the twenty-year statutory maximum of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). See
United States v. Thompson, 237 F.3d 1258, 1262 (10th Cir. 2001) (no Apprendi
violation where the sentence fell within the statutory range of 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1)(C)).
1
It appears from the district court docket entries that Mr. Ledesma may
have filed his notice of appeal untimely. The district court, however, did not
enter a separate Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 judgment. As such, we will proceed to the
determination of whether to grant a COA to Mr. Ledesma. See Allison v. Bank
One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 1232–33 (10th Cir. 2002) (accepting jurisdiction
where no Rule 58 judgment had been entered).
-3-
Therefore, for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we
DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-