FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 27, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 11-3378
v. (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CR-40009-SAC-1 and
5:11-CV-04041-SAC-1)
ANDREW RUTHERFORD, (D. Kansas)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Rutherford filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, seeking relief from his conviction for conspiring to traffic marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The district court denied his petition, and
he now asks us to issue a certificate of appealability (COA) to allow him to
contest that decision.
We may grant a COA only if Mr. Rutherford makes a “substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
standard, an applicant must show “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). Because Mr. Rutherford proceeds in this court pro
se, we review his pleadings with special solicitude.
Even by this forgiving standard we cannot grant a COA, because binding
precedent forecloses all of Mr. Rutherford’s claims. The bulk of the petition is
devoted to arguing that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 exceed the federal
government’s constitutional authority. But we have already held that these
statutes fall within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. See, e.g.,
United States v. Price, 265 F.3d 1097, 1106-07 (10th Cir. 2001). Mr. Rutherford
argues that these laws violate the Tenth Amendment, which he says “reserved” for
the states the power to punish drug cultivation. But ours is a system of dual
sovereignty, and the existence of state regulatory authority doesn’t preclude
Congress from legislating in the same area so long as it stays within its
enumerated powers. See Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 192-194 (1959).
Because §§ 841 and 846 are valid exercises of the commerce power and regulate
private parties as opposed to the states themselves, they do not contravene the
Tenth Amendment. See United States v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999, 1004 (10th Cir.
1996).
-2-
Mr. Rutherford’s as-applied challenge fares no better. In his guilty plea
colloquy he admitted to conspiring to ship drugs across state lines, conduct that
plainly would fall within the federal government’s authority to punish. See
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17-19 (2005).
Mr. Rutherford’s other claims fall along with his challenges to §§ 841 and
846. His lawyers couldn’t have been constitutionally ineffective for failing to
object to statutes that are plainly valid. And his claim that the District of Kansas
lacked jurisdiction to try his case likewise hinges on his assertion that the federal
government had no business outlawing his drug operation. Finally, his argument
that “the State of Kansas is not a ‘state’ under the Controlled Substances Act”
lacks any basis in law or logic.
The request for a COA is denied, as is Mr. Rutherford’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-