FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
S UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 6, 2009
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 08-3151
v. (D. Kansas)
ALEJANDRO SALAZAR, (D.C. Nos. 07-CV-02578-JWL and 04-
CR-20013-JWL-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this proceeding. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case
is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant and appellant Alejandro Salazar, a federal prisoner appearing
pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
§ 2253(c)(1) in order to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Because Salazar has
failed to satisfy the standards for issuance of a COA, we deny his request and
dismiss this appeal.
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2004, Salazar pled guilty to one count of distribution of more
than fifty grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Salazar’s plea agreement contained the following waiver of appellate rights:
9. Waiver of Appeal and Collateral Attack. Except as set forth
herein, defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives any right
to appeal or collaterally attack any matter in connection with
this prosecution and sentence. . . . By entering into this
agreement, he knowingly waives any right to appeal a sentence
imposed which is within the guideline range determined
appropriate by the court. He also waives any right to
challenge a sentence or the manner in which it was determined
in any collateral attack, including, but not limited to, a motion
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [except as limited by United
States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001)].
. . . In other words, he waives the right to appeal the sentence
imposed in this case except to the extent, if any, the court
departs upwards from the applicable sentencing guideline
range determined by the court. However, if the court
determines the defendant’s prior conviction for involuntary
manslaughter or either of the assault convictions arising out of
the same vehicle accident is a crime of violence within the
meaning of U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 and classifies him as a career
offender, and if the defendant would not otherwise be
classified as a career offender within the meaning of U.S.S.G.
§4B1.1, the defendant under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2) reserves
his right to appellate review of that ruling.
-2-
Plea Agreement at 5.
Salazar was sentenced on August 23, 2004. The district court ruled that
Salazar was a career offender under USSG §4B1.1, based in part on the court’s
determination that Salazar’s Missouri state court conviction for driving while
intoxicated involuntary manslaughter constituted a “crime of violence” for
Guideline purposes. The court then determined that the applicable Guidelines
sentencing range was 262 to 327 months, based upon an offense level of thirty-
four and a criminal history category VI, and sentenced Salazar the 262 months.
On direct appeal, this court vacated Salazar’s sentence and remanded for
resentencing. United States v. Salazar, 149 Fed. App’x 816 (10th Cir. Sept. 26,
2005). We upheld the determination that Salazar was a career offender under the
Guidelines, on the ground that the manslaughter conviction represented a “crime
of violence” for career offender enhancement purposes. We held, however, that
the district court had committed a non-constitutional error under United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) when it sentenced Salazar, and we accordingly
remanded for resentencing.
On December 19, 2005, the district court again sentenced Salazar to 262
months. When Salazar attempted to appeal that decision, we dismissed his appeal
after granting the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in
the plea agreement. United States v. Salazar, 188 Fed. App’x 787 (10th Cir.
July 14, 2006).
-3-
Salazar then filed the instant motion under § 2255, contending that his
counsel was ineffective in that (1) he entered into the guilty plea and plea
agreement based on counsel’s representation that Salazar would not be sentenced
as a career offender; and (2) his counsel at resentencing should have argued that
the case of Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), precluded application of
the career offender provisions to Salazar. The government, citing United States v.
Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004), moved to enforce Salazar’s waiver of
collateral attacks on his sentence, as stated in his plea agreement. The district
court denied Salazar’s § 2255 motion, finding:
Salazar has not established ineffective assistance of counsel relating
to his entering into the plea agreement and waiver. Based on that
failure, the Court concludes that Mr. Salazar’s claim falls within the
scope of his waiver of appeal and collateral attack, that his plea and
waiver were knowing and voluntary, and that enforcement of the
waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, under
Hahn, Mr. Salazar’s waiver will be enforced, and this claim is
dismissed.
Mem. and Order at 9. The court further held that Salazar’s Shepard claim also
fell within the scope of the appellate waiver and should be dismissed.
Alternately, the court held that it fails on its merits.
Salazar filed a notice of appeal and requested that the district court issue a
COA and grant him leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The district
court denied Salazar a COA but granted him leave to proceed on appeal ifp.
-4-
DISCUSSION
Issuance of a COA is jurisdictional. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322
(2003). In other words, a federal prisoner may appeal from the denial of a § 2255
motion only if the district court or this court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1). A court may issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). In
order to make such a showing, a federal prisoner must 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) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Where the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds,
as well as on the merits of the underlying constitutional claim, a petitioner must
show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both (1) whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Cf. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484
(holding that, where district court reached only the procedural issue, petitioner
must establish that the court’s rulings on both that issue and the merits are
reasonably debatable). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district
court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not
conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the
-5-
petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. In such a circumstance, no
appeal would be warranted.” Id. The Supreme Court has instructed courts to
resolve the procedural issue first. Id. at 485.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Salazar
has failed to establish that he had ineffective assistance of counsel relating to his
entering into the plea agreement and waiver. We also agree that Salazar’s waiver
of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary, that the waiver bars Salazar’s
claims, and that enforcement of the waiver would not result in a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325-29. The waiver in the plea
agreement accordingly precludes Salazar’s § 2255 motion. No reasonable jurist
could debate the propriety of the district court’s ruling on those issues.
The request for a COA is denied and this appeal is dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the request for a COA is DENIED and the appeal
is DISMISSED **
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
**
In light of our disposition regarding the appellant’s request for a
certificate of appealability, we need not address the government’s motion to
enforce the plea filed on June 25, 2008.
-6-