United States v. Gonzales

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 5 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 04-2081
v. (D.C. Nos. CIV-03-722-BB/LCS &
CR-01-1713-BB)
JAMES H. GONZALES, (D.N.M.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, HENRY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant James Gonzales, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to
appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct his sentence. He seeks a certificate of appealability (COA).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Because we find that Mr. Gonzales waived his right to
appellate review by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), we deny a COA and dismiss
the appeal.
Mr. Gonzales pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(B)(ii). He was subsequently
sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and five years supervised release. Mr.
Gonzales filed a timely § 2255 motion, raising several issues all related to
ineffective assistance of counsel. R. Doc. 1, 2, 10. After reviewing the merits of
Mr. Gonzales’s claims, the magistrate judge, in a recommendation apparently
served on February 11, 2004, recommended that the motion be denied. R. Doc.
12. The magistrate judge’s report further stated, “A party must file any objections
within the ten day period allowed if that party wants to have appellate review of
the proposed findings and recommendations. If no objections are filed, no
appellate review will be allowed.” Id. at 11-12.
On March 23, 2004, the district court adopted the magistrate’s report and
dismissed Mr. Gonzales’s motion and entered judgment. R. Doc. 13, 14. No
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation had been filed by either
party. Three weeks later, Mr. Gonzales filed a Notice of Appeal and Request for
COA, and the district court denied a COA. R. Doc. 15. We issued a show cause
order requiring Mr. Gonzales to address the apparent waiver issue in his opening
brief on appeal.
The Tenth Circuit has a “firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to the
findings and recommendations of the magistrate.” Moore v. United States, 950
F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)
(“[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a
-2-
district court judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing
of objections with the district court . . . .”). If the parties fail to make a timely
objection, 1 they “waive[] appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”
Moore, 950 F.2d at 659. However, this rule does not apply when (1) a pro se
litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the
consequences of failing to object, Id., or (2) the interests of justice require
review, Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d 1191, 1997 (10th Cir. 2004).
Neither of the exceptions to the firm waiver rule apply in this case. Mr.
Gonzales never filed objections to the magistrate’s findings and recommendation.
This despite the fact that the magistrate judge properly apprized Mr. Gonzales of
the time period for filing objections and the consequences of failure to do so.
Although Mr. Gonzales argues that the interests of justice exception should apply
because he is a layman and has been misdirected in the past by jailhouse lawyers,
he gives no specifics of any kind and our review of this matter fails to reveal any
“interest of justice” exception. Consequently, neither of the exceptions to our
firm waiver rule apply. See Fottler v. United States, 73 F.3d 1064, 1065 (10th
Cir. 1996). As noted, Mr. Gonzales had notice, and there is no right to counsel
for a § 2255 motion. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).
1
“Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and
file written objections to [the magistrate’s] proposed findings and
recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
-3-
Accordingly, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-