FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT April 16, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 13-2208
v. (D. New Mexico)
(D.C. Nos. 1:13-CV-00449-JCH-LAM
and 1:10-CR-03366-JCH-1)
MARK ALFONSO ORTIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER *
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Mark Alfonso Ortiz pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
ammunition and a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). He moved to
vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006), and the district court denied
the motion. Mr. Ortiz appeals and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. But, we can entertain the appeal only if
*
The present order does not constitute binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The order may
be cited, however, for its persuasive value.
Mr. Ortiz is entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). Holding that he is not entitled to a certificate, we
dismiss the appeal.
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Because Mr. Ortiz is indigent, we grant his application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Standard for a Certificate of Appealability
To obtain a certificate of appealability, Mr. Ortiz must make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
This showing requires 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) (quoting Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Background
In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Ortiz argued that: (1) one of his attorneys had
incompetently negotiated with the government and failed to request a mental
health evaluation (which allegedly would have resulted in a lower sentence), and
(2) the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose an intent to
seek an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
2
This matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended
dismissal with prejudice on the ground that Mr. Ortiz had waived his right to file
a § 2255 motion.
In the recommendation, the magistrate judge stated that any party could
object within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the recommendation.
Failure to timely object, the magistrate judge warned, would preclude appellate
review.
Thirty-four days later, Mr. Ortiz filed a document entitled “Motion in
Opposition of Magistrates Recommendation.” There he argued that he had not
received the government’s response to his § 2255 motion and asked the district
court to strike the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The government
responded to Mr. Ortiz’s motion by submitting the certified-mail receipt, showing
that the service copy had been sent to Mr. Ortiz’s address.
The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation,
concluded that Mr. Ortiz had failed to rebut the presumption of timely receipt of
the government’s response, and noted that no party had timely objected to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation. Mr. Ortiz asked the district judge for a
certificate of appealability, but she declined. Mr. Ortiz now asks us for one.
Mr. Ortiz’s Arguments on Appeal
3
On appeal, Mr. Ortiz reargues his claim of ineffective assistance, but
withdraws the claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Ortiz likewise reasserts
that he did not timely receive the government’s response, which prevented him
from fully litigating his § 2255 motion. Mr. Ortiz does not discuss the
government’s evidence or the timeframe for his objection to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation. Because Mr. Ortiz cannot overcome the firm waiver
rule imposed when a litigant fails to timely object to a magistrate judge’s
recommendation, we conclude that Mr. Ortiz is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability.
Under the firm waiver rule, “[t]he failure to timely object to a [magistrate
judge’s] recommendations ‘waives appellate review of both factual and legal
questions.’” Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). An exception
exists: (1) when the district court did not remind a pro se litigant of the deadline
and the consequences of a failure to timely object, or (2) when review on the
merits is required in the “interests of justice.” Id.
Mr. Ortiz did not timely object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Thus, we consider the two exceptions.
4
The first exception does not apply because the magistrate judge informed
Mr. Ortiz of both the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to
timely object.
The second exception is also inapplicable. The government established
that it had timely sent Mr. Ortiz a copy of its response brief, and Mr. Ortiz does
not present any other reason for his delay in objecting.
In these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Ortiz waived appellate review
by failing to timely object to the magistrate judge’s report.
Conclusion
Although we grant Mr. Ortiz’s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we conclude that he has waived appellate review. Thus, we deny his
request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
5