Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-04210/USCOURTS-ca10-09-04210-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Ayala-Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff–Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN AYALA-GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant–Appellant.

No. 09-4210

(D.C. Nos. 1:08-CV-00146-DS and 

1:06-CR-00118-DS-3)

(D. Utah)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before KELLY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

Juan Ayala-Gonzalez (“Ayala”) requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to 

appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Exercising 

jurisdiction under §§ 1291 and 2253, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

In 2007, Ayala pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 

grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He was sentenced to 135 months’ 

imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. In December 2008, Ayala 

filed a § 2255 petition claiming his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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

August 6, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 09-4210 Document: 01018472735 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

trial court’s jurisdiction to impose a sentence based on drug quantities higher than those 

amounts charged in Ayala’s indictment. 

 The district court denied Ayala’s petition on two grounds. First, it noted that the 

indictment charged Ayala “with distribut[ing] 500 grams or more of a . . . substance 

containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine” (emphasis added). This language 

permitted the trial court to sentence Ayala based on drug quantities exceeding 500 grams 

of methamphetamine. Second, the district court determined that “handwritten changes to 

the Statement in Advance of Plea”—changes that were initialed by Ayala and his 

attorney—clearly indicated that Ayala “knew that he was pleading guilty to possession 

and distribution of 1,771 grams of methamphetamine.” On appeal, Ayala argues that the 

district court’s reliance on the Statement in Advance of Plea was improper because he 

cannot read or understand English and there was no evidence that the statement had been 

translated by an interpreter.

Because he did not obtain a COA from the district court, Ayala may not appeal the 

denial of his habeas petition absent a grant of a COA by this court. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We 

may issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). This requires Ayala to 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) 

(quotations omitted). 

Appellate Case: 09-4210 Document: 01018472735 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

Even if Ayala’s contentions concerning the Statement in Advance of Plea are true, 

the district court properly dismissed his petition. The indictment charged Ayala “with 

distribut[ing] 500 grams or more of a . . . substance containing a detectable amount of 

methamphetamine” (emphasis added), thus properly stating the drug quantity for which 

he was sentenced. Moreover, even if the indictment had been defective, the district court 

would have nonetheless possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate his case. See United States 

v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630-31 (2002). Because Ayala’s argument regarding the 

indictment was without merit, his counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to 

raise it. See United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, we DENY Ayala’s request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. 

We GRANT Ayala’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Entered for the Court 

 Carlos F. Lucero 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 09-4210 Document: 01018472735 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 3