Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-06175/USCOURTS-ca10-24-06175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Angel Aguilar Plascencia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_______________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MIGUEL ANGEL AGUILAR 

PLASCENCIA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-6175

(D.C. Nos. 5:22−CV−01070−SLP & 

5:21-CR-00144-SLP-1) 

(W.D. Okla.)

_______________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

_______________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. 

_______________________________________ 

 This case grew out of a federal conviction of Mr. Miguel Angel 

Aguilar Plascencia for possessing methamphetamine with an intent to 

distribute. Mr. Aguilar unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in 

district court. He wants to appeal the denial of post-conviction relief. To 

do so, however, he needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). 

 A judge can issue a certificate only if Mr. Plascencia’s appellate 

arguments are reasonably debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). We conclude that they aren’t. 

In the motion for post-conviction relief, Mr. Aguilar claimed that 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 8, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-6175 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Page: 1
2 

 his trial attorney had been ineffective by failing to file a 

motion to suppress and by providing misleading advice on the 

potential sentence and 

 the government had breached a plea agreement. 

In a reply brief, Mr. Plascencia added claims involving a lack of probable 

cause, an unlawful search, and a failure to seek withdrawal of his guilty 

plea. The district court concluded that Mr. Aguilar had waived these claims 

by omitting them in the motion and waiting to add them in the reply brief. 

In seeking to appeal, Mr. Aguilar raises only the arguments that he 

asserted for the first time in his reply brief. But he argues that he couldn’t 

raise these arguments in the motion itself because the district court’s form 

had instructed him not to “argue or cite law.” Application for Cert. of 

Appealability at 11. But this instruction served only to excuse Mr. Aguilar 

from citing legal authority.1

 He still had to alert the district court to the 

argument that he was making. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 

1173–74 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that a court “will not . . . construct a 

legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf”). 

All parties, even those who are pro se, must comply with the 

“fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate 

1

 Mr. Aguilar could have presented separate legal arguments in a 

memorandum, for the form stated: “Any legal arguments must be submitted 

in a separate memorandum.” R. vol. 1, at 5. But Mr. Aguilar bypassed his 

chance to file a separate memorandum. 

Appellate Case: 24-6175 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Page: 2
3 

Procedure.” See Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 

1994). So a movant “waives an issue in the district court if he waits to 

raise the argument until his reply brief.” United States v. Lee Vang Lor, 

706 F.3d 1252, 1256 (10th Cir. 2013). We thus lack any arguable basis to 

question the district court’s reliance on waiver. 

* * * 

We conclude that Mr. Aguilar’s appellate arguments are not 

reasonably debatable. So we deny a certificate of appealability and order 

dismissal of this matter. 

Entered for the Court 

Robert E. Bacharach 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 24-6175 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Page: 3