Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01355/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elias Herrera-Zamora
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: ELIAS HERRERA-ZAMORA, 

 Movant.

No. 16-1355

(D.C. Nos. 1:13-CV-02126-PAB &

1:11-CR-00279-PAB-2)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Elias Herrera-Zamora seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. For the following reasons, we 

deny authorization.

Mr. Herrera-Zamora pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more 

of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture of substance containing a 

detectable amount of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 188 months’ 

imprisonment.1

 He filed an appeal and the government moved to enforce the appeal 

waiver in his plea agreement. We granted the motion to enforce and dismissed the 

appeal. See United States v. Herrera-Zamora, 521 F. App’x 714, 716 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Mr. Herrera-Zamora subsequently filed a § 2255 motion. The district court 

initially denied the motion in part and ordered an evidentiary hearing on one of the 

claims. Ultimately, the district court denied the motion. Mr. Herrera-Zamora sought a 

 1 He later received a reduction in his sentence to 151 months’ imprisonment under 

Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 28, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1355 Document: 01019697450 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 1 
2

certificate of appealability to appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion, but we denied 

his request. See United States v. Herrera-Zamora, 647 F. App’x 855, 855-56 (10th Cir. 

2016). 

In July 2016, he filed another § 2255 motion. The district court dismissed that 

motion for lack of jurisdiction because he had not received authorization from this court 

to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

Mr. Herrera-Zamora has now filed a motion seeking authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion. He argues that he is entitled to authorization because he has 

“newly discovered evidence that the purity of the methamphetamine drugs is an issue that 

effects[sic] the length of his sentence, and not the question of his guilt.” Mot. for Auth. 

at 2. He asserts that he “just recently found out from a laboratory test that the drugs 

was[sic] not pure, and his sentence was illegal, as given to him by the District Court.” Id. 

The standard for authorization, however, requires a showing that the “newly 

discovered evidence . . . 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) (emphasis 

added). Mr. Herrera-Zamora alleges that he has newly discovered evidence to support a 

claim of sentencing error; this evidence does not relate to his innocence. He has therefore 

failed to meet the standard for authorization in § 2255(h). See, e.g., In re Dean, 341 F.3d 

1247, 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Section 2255’s newly discovered evidence exception . . . 

does not apply to claims asserting sentencing error”).

Appellate Case: 16-1355 Document: 01019697450 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 2 
3

Accordingly, we deny Mr. Herrera-Zamora’s motion. This 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).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1355 Document: 01019697450 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 3