F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 2, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-2162
v. (D.C. No. CIV-05-226 LH/RLP)
FRANCISCO JAVIER RUIZ- (D. New Mexico)
GODINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER *
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Ruiz-Godinez, a federal inmate appearing pro se, seeks to
appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence. The matter is before this court on Ruiz-Godinez’s
request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(providing that no appeal may be taken from a “final order in a proceeding under
section 2255” unless the movant first obtains a COA). Because Ruiz-Godinez has
not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” this court
denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
(providing that a COA “may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right”).
On May 4, 2001, the district court entered judgment against Ruiz-Godinez,
sentencing him to a 108-month term of imprisonment for his conviction on drug
conspiracy charges. Ruiz-Godinez filed the instant § 2255 motion on
February 28, 2005, asserting that the district court improperly enhanced his
sentence through the utilization of judge-found facts in violation of Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005). Relying on this court’s decision in United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844,
849 (10th Cir 2005), the district court concluded neither Blakely nor Booker
applied retroactively on collateral appeal. Hence, the district court dismissed
Ruiz-Godinez’s motion with prejudice and granted judgment in favor of the
respondent United States.
This court cannot grant Ruiz-Godinez a COA unless he can demonstrate
“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.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether
Ruiz-Godinez has carried his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though
not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his
-2-
claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). Ruiz-Godinez is not
required to demonstrate that his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA. He
must, however, “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the
existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations omitted).
This court has reviewed Ruiz-Godinez’s application for a COA and
appellate brief, the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal pursuant
to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El and concludes that
Ruiz-Godinez is not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of Ruiz-
Godinez’s claim is not reasonably subject to debate and the claim is not adequate
to deserve further proceedings. This court has specifically and explicitly held that
neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively on collateral review. Price, 400
F.3d at 849; United States v. Bellamy, 411 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, Ruiz-Godinez has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This court DENIES Ruiz-Godinez’s request for a COA and DISMISSES
this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
United States Circuit Judge
-3-