Leyba v. Hartley

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 29, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
HERBERT LEYBA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN HARTLEY; ATTORNEY No. 08-1086
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF (D.C. No. 06-cv-2381-LTB-CBS)
COLORADO, (D. Colo)
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Herbert Leyba was charged in Colorado with 284 separate counts of
criminal conduct. He eventually pled guilty to three counts of aggravated
robbery, see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-302(1)(b), in exchange for dismissal of the
other 281 counts. Pursuant to his guilty plea, and after receiving some initial
state post-conviction relief, Mr. Leyba was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year
prison terms and a third, concurrent, 20-year term.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
Proceeding pro se, Mr. Leyba filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 arguing, inter alia, that (1) his plea agreement required his sentences to be
served concurrently, and (2) his sentence was aggravated in violation of his Sixth
Amendment rights. Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer issued a detailed 15-page
report and recommendation concluding that Mr. Leyba’s claims should be
dismissed with prejudice. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, dismissed Mr. Leyba’s habeas petition, and subsequently denied
his application for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) before this court.
Mr. Leyba now seeks a COA from us, and also renews his request to
proceed IFP. We may issue a COA only if Mr. Leyba makes “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), such
that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
338 (2003). Based on our independent review of the record in this case, and for
substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge, we conclude that no
reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling.
Accordingly, we deny Mr. Leyba’s request for a COA and dismiss his appeal. We
likewise agree with the district court that Mr. Leyba’s appeal is not taken in good
faith, and so deny his renewed motion for leave to proceed IFP. Mr. Leyba is
-2-
thus required to pay the filing fee immediately. See Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d
711, 714-15 (10th Cir. 2006).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-