FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 8, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 11-3141
v.
(D.C. No. 5:04-CR-40001-SAC-1)
(D. Kansas)
MARIANO BEDOLLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Mariano Bedolla, a federal prisoner, was convicted of drug offenses,
including possession of methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, and was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment. United
States v. Bedolla, 232 F. App’x 805, 806 (10th Cir. 2007). This court affirmed
his convictions. Id. at 811. On August 14, 2008, Bedolla filed a pro se 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion seeking relief from his convictions and sentence. The district
court denied the motion on May 18, 2009, and Bedolla did not seek a COA to
appeal that ruling. Instead, he filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion raising three
claims: (1) the district court denied his § 2255 motion without permitting him the
opportunity to file a supporting memorandum or providing him with a transcript
of the sentencing proceeding, (2) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for
failing to raise Apprendi and Booker claims, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to seek a departure or a variance from the advisory guidelines
sentence.
The district court construed the latter two claims as an unauthorized request
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion and transferred them to this court
after concluding it did not have jurisdiction to address them. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by this
section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application.”); see also United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1149 (10th Cir.
2006) (“It is the relief sought, not [the] pleading’s title, that determines whether
the pleading is a § 2255 motion.”). The court concluded Bedolla’s first claim was
a “true” Rule 60(b) motion but rejected it on the merits. See Spitznas v. Boone,
464 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (permitting a district court to reach the
merits of “true Rule 60(b) allegations” in a mixed Rule 60(b) motion).
Bedolla now seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the
district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. 1 See id. at 1217-18 (holding a
1
The district court’s characterization of Bedolla’s two ineffective assistance
claims was affirmed by this court and his request to file a second or successive
(continued...)
-2-
COA is required to appeal the denial of Rule 60(b) relief from a habeas
judgment). To be entitled to a COA, Bedolla must make “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the
requisite showing, he 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003) (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether Bedolla has satisfied his
burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration
of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his claims. Id. at 338; see also
LaFleur v. Teen Help, 342 F.3d 1145, 1153 (10th Cir. 2003) (reviewing the denial
of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for abuse of discretion). Although Bedolla need not
demonstrate his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove
something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.”
Id. (quotations omitted).
This court has reviewed Bedolla’s appellate brief and application for COA,
the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the
1
(...continued)
§ 2255 motion was denied. In re Bedolla, No. 11-3117 (10th Cir. June 6, 2011)
(order denying motion for remand and motion for authorization).
-3-
framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El and concludes Bedolla is
not entitled to a COA. Accordingly, we deny his request for a COA and dismiss
this appeal. Bedolla’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-