United States v. Hernandez-Morales

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 24 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 04-1299
vs. (D.C. No. 03-D-2297 (CBS))
(D. Colo.)
MARCELINO HERNANDEZ-
MORALES, also known as Marcelino
Hernandez, also known as Marcelino
H. Morales, also known as Marcelino
Moral,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, HENRY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Marcelino Hernandez-Morales, a federal inmate
appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and a subsequent motion to
alter or amend the judgment that raised claims pursuant to Blakely v. Washington,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Where the district court denies a habeas petition on the
merits, a COA should issue when the petition “demonstrate[s] that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where the
district court denies a petition on procedural grounds, a COA should only issue
when the petitioner “shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Id.; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Because we determine that Mr. Hernandez-Morales has not made such a showing,
we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Hernandez-Morales pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful reentry
into the United States following deportation subsequent to a conviction for an
aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). He objected at sentencing to a
twelve-level enhancement for having been previously convicted of a
drug-trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed was thirteen months or
less. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). Both the district court and this court on direct
appeal rejected his claim that the enhancement should have been contained in the
indictment pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). United
States v. Hernandez-Morales, No. 02-1521, 2003 WL 21750745, at *1 (10th Cir.
July 29, 2003).
Mr. Hernandez then filed his § 2255 motion claiming (1) ineffective
assistance of counsel based on counsel’s promise that the sentence would not
-2-
include the enhancement, (2) his plea was not knowingly made given the alleged
misrepresentation and the lack of an adequate translator during the plea process,
and (3) the district court improperly applied the enhancement not in conformity
with the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court rejected all three grounds. R.
Doc. 61. Thereafter, Mr. Hernandez-Morales filed a motion to alter or amend
judgment claiming that Blakely related to his third claim. R. Doc. 62 at 2. On
motion of the government, the district court determined that Mr. Hernandez-
Morales was attempting to raise a new claim in the motion to alter or amend and
directed the clerk to transfer the motion to the court of appeals as a second or
successive § 2255 motion. R. Doc. 69.
Thereafter, Mr. Hernandez-Morales on his own applied to this court for
leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion on Blakely grounds. A panel
of this court denied leave and dismissed the matter on the grounds that the
Supreme Court has not held Blakely applicable to the federal sentencing
guidelines, let alone retroactively to review cases on collateral review.
Hernandez-Morales v. United States, No. 04-1335, Order at 2 (Oct. 7, 2004).
In seeking a COA in this case (04-1299), Mr. Hernandez-Morales raises
only the applicability of Blakely. This claim is not reasonably debatable–the
district court lacked jurisdiction over the motion to alter or amend the judgment
as a second or successive § 2255 motion, and the court of appeals has rejected the
-3-
same claim.
Accordingly, we DENY COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-