Filed: Jan. 27, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 27, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 10-3241 (D.C. Nos. 2:10-CV-02016-JWL and GERARDO MOJICA-FABIAN, 2:06-CR-20062-JWL-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * Before LUCERO, SEYMOUR, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. After Gerardo Mojica-Fabian lost a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief from his
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 27, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 10-3241 (D.C. Nos. 2:10-CV-02016-JWL and GERARDO MOJICA-FABIAN, 2:06-CR-20062-JWL-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * Before LUCERO, SEYMOUR, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. After Gerardo Mojica-Fabian lost a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief from his f..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 27, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 10-3241
(D.C. Nos. 2:10-CV-02016-JWL and
GERARDO MOJICA-FABIAN,
2:06-CR-20062-JWL-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, SEYMOUR, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
After Gerardo Mojica-Fabian lost a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief
from his federal drug convictions, he failed to seek leave to appeal the district
court’s judgment in a timely fashion. Instead, he filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion asking the district court to reconsider its decision. Concluding that Mr.
Mojica-Fabian’s Rule 60(b) motion was largely an effort to pursue a second or
successive § 2255 motion without prior authorization from this court, the district
court dismissed that portion of the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Holding that
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
the remainder of the Rule 60(b) motion amounted to a “true” Rule 60(b) motion,
the district court rejected it on the merits. Mr. Mojica-Fabian now seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s disposition of
his Rule 60(b) motion.
We may issue a COA only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard,
an applicant must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” United States v. Taylor,
454 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). Because Mr. Mojica-Fabian proceeds in this court pro se, we review his
pleadings with special solicitude.
Even so, we see nothing suggesting any impropriety in the district court’s
Rule 60(b) ruling. Much of Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s Rule 60(b) motion did amount
to an improper attempt to present a second or successive petition in the district
court without prior authorization by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
What remained of Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s motion was meritless because, as the
district court explained, the motion rested on a mistaken premise — namely, that
the district court had relied on the procedural default doctrine when denying his
original § 2255 motion. See United States v. Mojica-Fabian, Nos. 06-20062, 10-
2016,
2010 WL 3258369, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2010). To the extent Mr.
-2-
Mojica-Fabian seeks in this court to present untimely arguments for relief not
directed at the district court’s Rule 60(b) ruling but its underlying judgment, we
will not consider them. See Manco v. Werholtz,
528 F.3d 760, 762 (10th Cir.
2008). Because Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s COA application fails to present a non-
frivolous argument for relief, we deny his application to proceed in forma
pauperis. See McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir.
1997).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-