FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 26, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 09-6292
v. (D.C. Nos. 09-CV-00473-R and
06-CR-00115-R-1)
JESUS ADOLFO (W.D. Okla.)
TINAJERO-PORRAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jesus Tinajero-Porras, a federal inmate appearing pro
se, seeks to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Because Mr. Tinajero-Porras has not
made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2), we deny his request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and
dismiss the appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
A jury convicted Mr. Tinajero-Porras on drug charges arising out of a
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine
and 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana and he was sentenced to 30 years’
imprisonment. United States v. Tinajero-Porras, 275 F. App’x. 794, 795 (10th
Cir. 2008). In his § 2255 motion, he primarily argued that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. On appeal, he argues that counsel was ineffective based on
failing to object, argue, and preserve the following points: (1) the four-point
enhancement for being a leader/organizer lacks a factual basis, (2) the drug
quantities used were in error, (3) there was no evidence he laundered money, (4)
the two-point enhancement for a firearm was not supported by the evidence, and
(5) cumulative error. He also objects to the district court’s practice of striking his
reply brief because it was not timely filed within 11 days. 1 R. 230.
To obtain a COA, Mr. Tinajero-Porrras must show “that jurists of reason
could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or
that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
(2003). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Tinajero-Porras was
required to prove deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Having reviewed the pleadings including the
government’s responses and the Pre-Sentence Report, 1 R. 94-156, 181-204, and
the district court’s resolution of Mr. Tinajero-Porras’ claims, we are satisfied that
he cannot meet this standard. 1 R. 165-71, 207-09, 230 (noting that the result
would not be altered even had the court considered the reply brief).
-2-
We deny a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-