Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_99-cr-00905/USCOURTS-azd-3_99-cr-00905-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Plaintiff
Allison Yazzie
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The Clerk of the Court construed the petition as also being the defendant's Notice of

Appeal, and separately docketed it as such as document no. 64. The petition also included a

request for the appointment of counsel, which was not separately docketed; the Court finds that

the request should be denied. The defendant also filed a document entitled "Poverty affidavit"

(doc. #66), which the Clerk of the Court construed and docketed as a motion for leave to appeal

in forma pauperis.

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, ) No. CR-99-0905-PCT-PGR

) No. CV-03-1053-PCT-PGR

vs. )

) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

Allison Yazzie, ) OF APPEALABILITY

)

Defendant/Movant. ) )

Pending before the Court is the defendant's Petition for Certificate of

Appealibility [sic] (doc. #65)1

, brought as a result of the defendant's appeal of the

judgment dismissing his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Having

considered the petition in light of the record, the Court finds that no certificate of

appealability should be issued because the defendant has failed to make a

Case 3:99-cr-00905-PGR Document 67 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 2 -

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as is statutorily required. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2).

In dismissing the defendant's § 2255 motion, the Court accepted and

adopted the Magistrate Judge's conclusions, to which the defendant failed to file

any objections, that the defendant's motion was both untimely filed and

substantively meritless. In his COA petition, the defendant raises a legal ground

which was not part of his § 2255 motion, the gist of which is that his sentence,

which was imposed on August 28, 2000, was improperly based on an upward

departure in violation of such cases as Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,

120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531

(2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).

Even if the Court were to consider this new ground at this late date, the

defendant has not satisfied the substantial showing threshold necessary for the

issuance of a COA. First, Blakely and Booker cannot validly form the basis for an

appeal because neither can be applied retroactively on collateral review. See

United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, Apprendi

is not implicated under the facts of this case because the enhanced sentence

was imposed on the defendant pursuant to a plea agreement in which he

admitted all relevant facts and stipulated to the specific sentenced he received.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis (doc. #66) is granted pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's Petition for Certificate of

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:99-cr-00905-PGR Document 67 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 3 -

Appealability (doc. #65) is denied.

DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.

Case 3:99-cr-00905-PGR Document 67 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 3