Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-01086/USCOURTS-ca10-08-01086-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 29, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HERBERT LEYBA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

WARDEN HARTLEY; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-1086

(D.C. No. 06-cv-2381-LTB-CBS)

(D. Colo)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Herbert Leyba was charged in Colorado with 284 separate counts of

criminal conduct. He eventually pled guilty to three counts of aggravated

robbery, see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-302(1)(b), in exchange for dismissal of the

other 281 counts. Pursuant to his guilty plea, and after receiving some initial

state post-conviction relief, Mr. Leyba was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year

prison terms and a third, concurrent, 20-year term.

Appellate Case: 08-1086 Document: 01011032319 Date Filed: 05/29/2008 Page: 1 
- 2 -

Proceeding pro se, Mr. Leyba filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 arguing, inter alia, that (1) his plea agreement required his sentences to be

served concurrently, and (2) his sentence was aggravated in violation of his Sixth

Amendment rights. Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer issued a detailed 15-page

report and recommendation concluding that Mr. Leyba’s claims should be

dismissed with prejudice. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s

recommendation, dismissed Mr. Leyba’s habeas petition, and subsequently denied

his application for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) before this court. 

Mr. Leyba now seeks a COA from us, and also renews his request to

proceed IFP. We may issue a COA only if Mr. Leyba makes “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), such

that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

338 (2003). Based on our independent review of the record in this case, and for

substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge, we conclude that no

reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling. 

Accordingly, we deny Mr. Leyba’s request for a COA and dismiss his appeal. We

likewise agree with the district court that Mr. Leyba’s appeal is not taken in good

faith, and so deny his renewed motion for leave to proceed IFP. Mr. Leyba is

Appellate Case: 08-1086 Document: 01011032319 Date Filed: 05/29/2008 Page: 2 
- 3 -

thus required to pay the filing fee immediately. See Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d

711, 714-15 (10th Cir. 2006).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 08-1086 Document: 01011032319 Date Filed: 05/29/2008 Page: 3