United States v. Garcia

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 26, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 05-2069
RICHARD GARCIA, (D.C. No. CV-04-1292 BB/ACT)
(D.C. No. CR-01-1134 BB)
Defendant-Appellant. (D.N.M.)
ORDER
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Richard Garcia, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of the habeas petition he filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (providing that no appeal
may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2255 petition unless the petitioner first
obtains a COA).
Garcia pled guilty to a charge of distribution of cocaine base. The district court
sentenced him to a term of 60 months imprisonment and entered judgment on the
conviction on November 8, 2002. Garcia did not directly appeal his conviction or
sentence. On November 12, 2004, Garcia filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his sentence was imposed in
violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The district court denied his
motion because Blakely and United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), which
extended the logic of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, do not apply
retroactively to cases on collateral review. Garcia filed a motion for reconsideration
which the district court also denied. Additionally, the district court denied his application
for a COA, but granted his petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
This court can issue a COA only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies
this standard 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.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). This determination “requires an overview of the
claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” Id. at 336. Garcia
is not required to prove the merits of his case, but he must nonetheless demonstrate
“something more than the absence of frivolity” or the mere existence of good faith on his
part. Id. at 338 (quotations omitted).
Pursuant to the Miller-El framework, this court has reviewed Garcia’s application
and the record below and concludes that Garcia is not entitled to a COA. The district
court was correct; neither Blakely nor Booker are retroactive or apply to cases on
collateral review. Leonard v. United States, 383 F.3d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 2004);
2
United States v. Bellamy, 411 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Garcia has
not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and this court
must DENY his application and DISMISS the case.
The request for a COA is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
3