Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-01438/USCOURTS-ca10-19-01438-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Jacoby
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL JACOBY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-1438 

(D.C. Nos. 1:19-CV-02467-KHV & 

1:10-CR-00502-KHV-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Michael Jacoby, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to 

appeal from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his motion for 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He also requests in the alternative that this court grant him 

authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. We deny both a COA and 

authorization. 

I. Background

Jacoby was convicted in 2012 of eleven counts of wire fraud, three counts of 

money laundering, and two counts of bank fraud, and was sentenced to 108 months’ 

 

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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

January 31, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-1438 Document: 010110298189 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 1
2 

imprisonment and five years of supervised release. This court affirmed his convictions 

and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Zar, 790 F.3d 1036, 1059 (10th Cir. 

2015). He filed his first § 2255 motion in 2016, challenging his conviction on four 

different grounds. The district court denied relief and we denied a COA. United States v. 

Jacoby, 750 F. App’x 689 (10th Cir. 2018). 

Jacoby filed the § 2255 motion at issue here in 2019. He claimed he had newly 

discovered evidence that, if presented to the jury, would have established his actual 

innocence. Because Jacoby filed this successive § 2255 motion without authorization 

from this court, the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. In the same order, 

the district court denied a COA and declined to transfer the motion to this court, noting 

that Jacoby’s claims were not meritorious because his new evidence was not newly 

discovered. 

II. COA 

 To appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motion, Jacoby must obtain a COA. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 

2008). We liberally construe his pro se opening brief and application for a COA. 

See Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). To obtain a COA where, as 

here, a district court has dismissed a filing on procedural grounds, the movant must show 

both “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We need not address the constitutional question if 

Appellate Case: 19-1438 Document: 010110298189 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 2
3 

we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of the 

procedural one. Id. at 485. 

A prisoner may not file a second or successive § 2255 motion unless he first 

obtains an order from the circuit court authorizing the district court to consider the 

motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); id. § 2255(h). Absent such authorization, a district 

court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2255 motion. 

In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008). 

 In his application for a COA to this court, Jacoby does not dispute that he 

previously filed a § 2255 motion and that he did not obtain authorization from this court 

to file another one. Nor does he explain how the district court erred in its procedural 

ruling dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he argues the merits of his 

underlying newly discovered evidence claims. Because Jacoby has not shown that jurists 

of reason would debate whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct, we 

deny a COA. 

III. Authorization 

In the alternative, Jacoby seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 

motion based on new evidence. To be entitled to authorization, he must show that he has 

“newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a 

whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(h)(1). But he does not offer any newly discovered evidence. Instead, he points to 

evidence that pre-dates his conviction and that he knew about long before he filed his 

Appellate Case: 19-1438 Document: 010110298189 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 3
4 

first § 2255 motion. Indeed, much of the supposedly new evidence he relies on in the 

motion at issue here is the same evidence that underpinned the ineffective assistance of 

counsel claims he raised in his first motion. Because he has not identified any newly 

discovered evidence, much less any that would establish his actual innocence, he has 

failed to meet the standard for authorization in § 2255(h)(1). 

IV. Conclusion 

We deny both a COA and Jacoby’s alternative request for authorization. The 

denial of authorization “shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition 

for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). We grant Jacoby’s 

motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees. 

Entered for the Court 

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 19-1438 Document: 010110298189 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 4