FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 23, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 12-3041
(D.C. Nos. 6:11-CV-01352-MLB and
v.
6:10-CR-10104-MLB-1)
(D. Kan.)
JESUS MALDONADO-ORTEGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Maldonado-Ortega pleaded guilty to federal drug and firearm charges
and, as part of the plea agreement, waived his right to appeal and to collaterally
attack his conviction and sentence. Even so, he filed a federal habeas petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his sentence was too high and that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction over his case. The district court dismissed Mr.
Maldonado-Ortega’s petition on the grounds that his challenge to his sentence
was barred by the waiver and that his jurisdictional challenge was meritless.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
Renewing his challenge in this court, Mr. Maldonado-Ortega asks us for a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) so that he may appeal the district court’s
dismissal of his petition.
We may grant a COA only if Mr. Maldonado-Ortega makes a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under
this 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. Maldonado-Ortega proceeds in this
court pro se, we review his pleadings with special solicitude.
Even under this forgiving standard, we cannot grant a COA. First, as the
district court held, Mr. Maldonado-Ortega’s challenges to his sentence are barred
by his plea agreement. Mr. Maldonado-Ortega does not dispute that the plea
agreement’s waiver of appellate and habeas rights encompasses the challenges he
now presents to his sentence, nor does he contend the waiver was not knowing
and voluntary. His lawyer adequately informed him of the range of sentences he
could face, the trial judge explained in clear terms the meaning of the waiver
provision, and Mr. Maldonado-Ortega said he understood and agreed to these
terms. Under such circumstances, we must enforce the waiver. See United States
v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1188 (10th Cir. 2001).
-2-
Mr. Maldonado-Ortega’s jurisdictional challenge fares no better. He says
that his drug crime was a quintessentially local offense that under the Tenth
Amendment may not be brought in federal court. But we have repeatedly upheld
21 U.S.C. § 841 against Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment challenge. See,
e.g., United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995). Nor does it
matter, as Mr. Maldonado-Ortega suggests, that local law enforcement got to him
first. Under our system of dual sovereignty, the possibility of criminal charges
under state law does not affect the federal government’s ability to punish that
same conduct for contravention of federal law. Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S.
187, 192-94 (1959).
The request for a COA is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-