United States v. Guillen-Zapata , 240 F. App'x 797 ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
July 11, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-2032
v. (D. New M exico)
GABRIEL GUILLEN-ZAPATA, (D.C. No. CIV-05-1177 W PJ/RLP)
Defendant-Appellant.
OR DER
Before H E N RY, T YM KOV IC H, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Guillen-Zapata, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate, modify, or set aside his sentence. In his §
2255 petition, M r. Guillen-Zapata alleged (1) his indictment was defective, (2)
there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to demonstrate there was a single
conspiracy, rather than multiple conspiracies, and (3) his counsel was ineffective
for (a) failing to object to both the faulty indictment and the insufficient evidence
of a single conspiracy, and (b) for joining his codefendant’s motion to suppress.
In this request for a COA, M r. Guillen-Zapata challenges only the sufficiency of
the indictment and counsel’s failure to challenge the indictment. For substantially
the same reasons as the district court, we agree that M r. Guillen-Zapata is not
entitled to a C OA, and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
Border patrol agents apprehended M r. Guillen-Zapata in N ew M exico. M r.
Guillen-Zapata is a M exican citizen who lacks immigration documents. He was
driving a vehicle that contained 1,650 pounds of marijuana. The agents also
stopped a companion lead truck, driven by Erasmo Ruiz-Soto, that contained
1,600 pounds of marijuana.
After failing in his motion to suppress, M r. Guillen-Zapata entered a
conditional guilty plea in federal district court to (1) conspiracy to possess
marijuana w ith the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)(A),
(b)(1)(A), and 846; (2) possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and (3) being found in the United States
after having been deported as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony in
violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2).
On direct appeal, this court rejected M r. Guillen-Zapata’s challenge to the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, which alleged that the border
patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. See United States v.
Guillen-Zapata, 157 Fed. Appx. 75 (10th Cir. 2005). M r. Guillen-Zapata timely
filed his § 2255 motion.
-2-
II. DISCUSSION
In order to obtain a COA, M r. Guillen-Zapata must make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He may
make this showing “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with
the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could
conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” M iller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). “[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. at 338.
M r. Guillen-Zapata challenges the sufficiency of the indictment, contending
that the first count of the indictment failed to indicate when the alleged
conspiracy ended, and as such, failed to put M r. Guillen-Zapata on notice, in
violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also maintains that
counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the indictment.
Count I of the Superseding Indictment stated:
On or about the 19th day of December 2002, in D oña A na C ounty, in
the State and District of N ew M exico and elsew here, the defendants,
GABRIEL GUILLEN-ZAPATA and ERASM O RUIZ-SOTO, did
unlaw fully, knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate
and agree together and with each other and with other persons whose
names are known and unknown to the grand jury to comm it the
following offense against the United States, to wit: Possession with
Intent to Distribute 1000 kilograms and more of M arijuana, a Schedule
-3-
I controlled substance, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A).
Rec. doc. 15, at 2 ¶ 4 (M ag. Report and Recommendation, filed Dec. 22, 2006)
(quoting Superseding Indictment).
After recognizing the indictment did not set forth an ending date for the
conspiracy, the magistrate judge recommended the indictment was sufficient
because it set forth the elements of the charged offense, put M r. Guillen-Zapata
on fair notice of the charge against w hich he had to defend, and enabled him to
assert a double jeopardy offense. See United States v. Dashney, 117 F.3d 1197,
1205 (10th Cir. 1997) (“An indictment is sufficient if it sets forth the elements of
the offense charged, puts the defendant on fair notice of the charges against which
he must defend, and enables the defendant to assert a double jeopardy defense.”).
For substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district court’s
order, we conclude that M r. Guillen-Zapata’s challenge to the indictment lacks
merit and, thus, his counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it.
III. CONCLUSION
A ccordingly, w e D EN Y M r. Guillen-Zapata’s request for a COA, DENY
his motion to proceed IFP, and DISM ISS the matter.
Entered for the Court,
ELISABETH A. SHUM AKER, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
-4-