FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 29, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Nos. 10-2277 & 11-2021
(D.C. Nos. 1:10-CV-00030-JB-WDS
LEOBARDO MORALES-RAMIREZ, & 1:05-CR-00920-JB-2)
(D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY and PORFILIO, Senior Circuit
Judges.
Leobardo Morales-Ramirez has filed a combined application for a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely (case no. 10-2277) and to appeal the district
court’s dismissal of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction (case
no. 11-2021). We deny Mr. Morales-Ramirez’s request for a COA in both cases.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
Background
Mr. Morales-Ramirez was convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to
possess and distribute over one kilogram of heroin and of possessing with an
intent to distribute over one kilogram of heroin. He was sentenced to 240
months’ imprisonment. On December 27, 2007, we affirmed his convictions. See
United States v. Morales-Ramirez, 260 F. App’x 25, 27 (10th Cir. 2007).
On January 11, 2010, more than two years after we affirmed his
convictions, Mr. Morales-Ramirez filed for relief under § 2255. The district court
entered an order directing Mr. Morales-Ramirez to show cause why his motion
should not be dismissed as untimely as it was filed after the expiration of the
one-year limitation period in § 2255. In response, Mr. Morales-Ramirez argued
that the one-year limitation should be equitably tolled under the “actual innocence
exception,” R. at 26, and because of a loss of subject-matter jurisdiction by the
district court resulting from constitutional errors in the presentence investigation
report (PSIR), id. at 27. The district court concluded that Mr. Morales-Ramirez
failed to establish the timeliness of his § 2255 motion and dismissed the motion.
Id. at 52.
Mr. Morales-Ramirez next filed a Rule 60(b) motion, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing his § 2255 motion and asking the
court to review his § 2255 motion on the merits. The district court determined
-2-
that the 60(b) motion constituted an unauthorized second-or-successive § 2255
motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Discussion
Mr. Morales-Ramirez seeks a COA to challenge the district court’s
disposition of his § 2255 motion and the disposition of his Rule 60(b) motion.
The district court resolved both motions on procedural grounds. Under these
circumstances, Mr. Morales-Ramirez must show “that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000). We have discretion to decide which issue to resolve first. See
id. at 484-85.
In his COA application, Mr. Morales-Ramirez argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion and erred in characterizing
his 60(b) motion as a second-or-successive § 2255 motion. He also argues that he
is entitled to the actual-innocence exception to avoid the procedural bar to his
§ 2255 motion.
Case no. 10-2277
In response to the district court’s show-cause order, Mr. Morales-Ramirez
argued that the one-year statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because
of his actual innocence. He asserted that his conviction and sentence were
-3-
unconstitutional because drug type and quantity should not be treated as an
element of the offense under § 841, citing to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000).
“Equitable tolling would be appropriate . . . when a prisoner is actually
innocent.” Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000). As the district
court explained, however, Mr. Morales-Ramirez did “not allege that he did not
commit the charged conduct; instead he argues that, under Apprendi v. New
Jersey, his indictment was defective.” R. at 51. The district court therefore
determined that Mr. Morales-Ramirez’s argument under Apprendi “fails to
establish that a ‘constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of
one who is actually innocent.’” Id. (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496
(1986)). As we have noted, actual innocence means factual innocence, see United
States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121, 1124 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008), and the district
court here correctly recognized that Mr. Morales-Ramirez’s argument implicated
legal innocence, not factual innocence. Because no reasonable jurist could debate
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling to dismiss the
§ 2255 motion as untimely, Mr. Morales-Ramirez has not established his
entitlement to a COA.
Case no. 11-2021
We need not resolve Mr. Morales-Ramirez’s challenge to the district
court’s procedural ruling to dismiss his 60(b) motion as an unauthorized
-4-
second-or-successive § 2255 motion because Mr. Morales-Ramirez must also
make a showing on the merits of his 60(b) motion in order to be entitled to a
COA. Cf. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85 (explaining that there are two components to
obtaining a COA from a procedural dismissal and that the prisoner must make a
showing on both the procedural issue and the underlying merits). As the Supreme
Court noted, “[A] court may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair
and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more
apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. In this case, the issue
whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments is the one related
to the merits of Mr. Morales-Ramirez’s 60(b) motion. In his 60(b) motion
Mr. Morales-Ramirez asserted that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely. But as we have just explained above
in discussing the district court’s decision to dismiss his § 2255 motion, reasonable
jurists could not debate the correctness of the decision to dismiss that motion as
untimely. As a result, Mr. Morales-Ramirez has failed to show that jurists of
reason would find it debatable that his 60(b) motion stated a valid claim that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely.
-5-
Accordingly, we DENY the application for a COA in case no. 10-2277 and
in case no. 11-2021, and we DISMISS these appeals.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-6-