United States v. Velarde

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT March 30, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 17-8006
(D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-00117-NDF and
EUGENE VELARDE, 1:13-CR-00160-NDF-1)
(D. Wyo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Movant Eugene Velarde, a federal prisoner appearing 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(requiring a COA to appeal an order denying a § 2255 motion). He also requests leave to
* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the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. Velarde is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also United States v.
Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e must construe [a pro se litigant’s]
arguments liberally; this rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point at which
we begin to serve as his advocate.”).
proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
deny both requests and dismiss this matter.
Background
A jury convicted Mr. Velarde of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute,
and to distribute, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. At sentencing, the district court granted Mr. Velarde’s
request for a downward variance and sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 120
months in prison. This court affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Velarde, 606 F.
App’x 434 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished).
On May 9, 2016, Mr. Velarde filed his pro se § 2255 motion in the United States
District Court for the District of Wyoming. He claimed constitutional violations of:
(1) equal protection under the Fifth Amendment because the prosecution failed to offer
him the plea agreement it offered to his co-defendants, who received lower sentences
than he did despite their more significant criminal histories; and (2) effective assistance
of counsel under the Sixth Amendment because his defense counsel failed to secure a
plea offer comparable to that of his co-defendants.
On January 6, 2017, the district court denied relief. It determined: (1) the equal
protection claim was procedurally defaulted; and (2) Mr. Velarde failed to show a basis
for relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-2-
Discussion
1. Equal Protection Claim
When a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, we will
issue a COA only if the movant shows it is “debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “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.The district court denied relief on Mr. Velarde’s equal protection claim because he
did not raise this issue on direct appeal and did not show cause and prejudice to excuse
this procedural default or show a miscarriage of justice due to actual innocence. “A
defendant’s failure to present an issue on direct appeal bars him from raising the issue in
his § 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.” United
States v. Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 291 (10th Cir. 1994).
On appeal, Mr. Velarde argues that direct appeal is reserved only for review of
trial court errors, not for the government’s alleged discriminatory failure to offer a plea
agreement. Aplt. Br. at 4. This argument has no basis in the law. Criminal defendants
routinely include claims about the conduct of the prosecution in their direct criminal
appeals. See e.g., United States v. Johnson, 821 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2016) (raising
-3-
claim of prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal). Because Mr. Velarde could have
raised his equal protection challenge on direct appeal and did not justify his failure to do
so, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s denial of this claim based on
procedural default. We therefore deny a COA on this issue.
2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
To obtain a COA on his ineffective assistance claim, Mr. Velarde must make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see
also Slack, 529 U.S. at 483–84. A prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right” by “showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. at 484 (quotations omitted).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must show
(1) constitutionally deficient performance that (2) resulted in prejudice by demonstrating
“a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,
694 (1984). If the applicant is unable to show either “deficient performance” or
“sufficient prejudice,” the ineffective assistance claim “necessarily fails.” Hooks v.
Workman, 606 F.3d 715, 724 (10th Cir. 2010).
In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Velarde claimed his counsel failed to obtain a plea offer
comparable to the offers his co-defendants received or, if counsel did obtain such an
offer, he failed to communicate it to Mr. Velarde. The record fails to show the
Government communicated a plea offer to defense counsel or even would have been
-4-
willing to engage in plea negotiations with Mr. Velarde. Also, as the district court noted,
Mr. Velarde failed to show his sentence would have been different with a plea agreement.
Mr. Velarde did not show deficient performance or prejudice. Reasonable jurists could
not debate the district court’s denial of his ineffective assistance claim. We therefore
deny a COA.
Conclusion
We deny a COA on both the equal protection and ineffective assistance of counsel
issues Mr. Velarde wishes to appeal. We also deny his motion to proceed ifp. This
matter is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-