FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 19, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-6116
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
JULIO C. VALLE, (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CV-00077-R and
5:03-CR-00145-R-8)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, 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 matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Julio Valle, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a Certificate of
Appealability (“COA”) to enable him to appeal the district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, correct or set aside his sentence. We deny
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
Mr. Valle a COA, deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and
dismiss this matter.
Mr. Valle has appeared before our court once already. United States v.
Valle, 359 Fed. Appx. 77 (10th Cir.) (unpublished) (“Valle I”), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1917 (2010). As explained in that decision, Mr. Valle pled guilty to one
count of distributing 472.3 grams of cocaine and one count of reentry of a
removed alien. His plea agreement “included a waiver of his right to appeal any
matter in connection with his sentence.” Id. at 78. Despite that waiver, Mr. Valle
endeavored to appeal his sentence and the government moved to enforce the
appeal waiver pursuant to our decision in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In Valle I, we granted the government’s
motion and dismissed Mr. Valle’s appeal.
Mr. Valle then brought the instant pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing
that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, that his counsel was ineffective, and
that his sentence over-represented the seriousness of his crime. The district court
held that, as our court had previously found when we granted the government’s
motion for enforcement of Mr. Valle’s plea agreement, the plea was knowing and
voluntary: “[o]n the basis of the validity of Plaintiff’s plea and Plaintiff’s
knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to collaterally challenge his guilty plea
and sentence, Defendant’s § 2255 motion of subject to dismissal.” Order at 2.
-2-
The district court went on, however, to address the merits of Mr. Valle’s
other claims regarding ineffectiveness of counsel and his sentence. The court
rejected them on their merits, finding that Mr. Valle’s counsel was not
ineffective, that Mr. Valle’s plea was valid, and that his sentence did not over-
represent the seriousness of his crime. The court accordingly denied Mr. Valle’s
§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Mr. Valle seeks a COA
to enable him to appeal that decision.
“A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review.” Clark v. Oklahoma,
468 F.3d 711, 713 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (203)). We will 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). For
those claims the district court denies on the merits, the petitioner must
demonstrate “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of
the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000). When the district court denies a COA on procedural grounds, the
petitioner must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
. . . whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.
Having reviewed the record and the controlling law, and liberally
construing Mr. Valle’s pro se filings, we conclude that, for substantially the same
reasons set forth by the district court in its April 2, 2010, Order, Mr. Valle has not
-3-
met the requirements for issuance of a COA. The district court’s analysis was
sound and well-reasoned, and we need not reiterate it.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY a COA and DISMISS this case. We
also DENY Mr. Valle’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-4-