FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 23, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 11-3135
(D.C. Nos. 6:10-CV-01118-WEB and
THOMAS J. FERNANDEZ, 6:08-CR-10141-WEB-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
In 2009, Thomas Fernandez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. In due course, Mr.
Fernandez filed a motion in the district court seeking relief from this conviction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court, however, denied the petition. It did
so because Mr. Fernandez’s plea agreement with the government expressly
waived his right to pursue a § 2255 petition; such waivers are “generally
enforceable where [they are] expressly stated in the plea agreement and where
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
both the plea and the waiver [are] knowingly and voluntarily made,” United
States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1183 (10th Cir. 2001); and, in the district
court’s view, Mr. Fernandez couldn’t show that he agreed to the waiver in his
plea agreement unknowingly or involuntarily. In response to this ruling, Mr.
Fernandez requested a certificate of appealability (“COA”), which the district
court also denied. So it is that Mr. Fernandez now seeks a COA from this court.
We may grant a COA only if Mr. Fernandez makes a “substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this
standard, Mr. Fernandez 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)
(internal quotation omitted).
Mr. Fernandez fails to meet this high threshold. Before us, he argues that
his plea agreement waiver wasn’t knowing and voluntary — and, thus, he should
be allowed to pursue a § 2255 motion — for essentially three reasons.
First, Mr. Fernandez alleges that the government coerced him to plead
guilty by threatening to prosecute his wife and mother. The government is, of
course, held to a “high standard of good faith” when seeking to employ such
tactics in plea negotiations. United States v. Wright, 43 F.3d 491, 498 (10th Cir.
1994). But a plea entered to obtain leniency for third persons is not unlawfully
-2-
coercive, this court has held, if the government actually has probable cause to
charge those persons. Id. at 499. And in this case the district court found the
detailed allegations contained in the second superseding indictment demonstrated
that the government possessed probable cause to charge both Mr. Fernandez’s
wife and mother. Therefore, the district court held, the government’s alleged
threats, if made, did not render Mr. Fernandez’s plea involuntary as a matter of
law. We cannot say that this assessment of Mr. Fernandez’s claim is reasonably
debatable given this court’s settled case law.
Second, Mr. Fernandez argues that his waiver of § 2255 rights was
ineffective because he did not understand the terms of his plea agreement.
However, the district court performed a thorough Rule 11 plea colloquy in which
Mr. Fernandez twice acknowledged the waiver of his collateral attack rights. See
ROA at vol. 3, pg. 48-50. Accordingly, this claim is also without merit.
Finally, Mr. Fernandez argues that his attorney provided ineffective
assistance of counsel during the course of plea negotiations, such that he didn’t
appreciate the nature of his plea agreement. As the district court noted, however,
Mr. Fernandez has provided no facts to support this allegation and the plea
colloquy shows he was fully informed of and understood the waiver he agreed to.
Because we conclude that no reasonable jurist would debate the district
-3-
court’s disposition of Mr. Fernandez’s claims, we deny Mr. Fernandez’s
application for a COA and dismiss this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-4-