Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02045/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02045-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Davalos-Ponce
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN DAVALOS-PONCE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-2045 

(D.C. Nos. 2:15-CV-01070-RB-KK & 

2:12-CR-03033-RB-1) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

 

Before PHILLIPS, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

After Juan Davalos-Ponce pled guilty to reentry of a removed alien in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), the district court sentenced him to 63 

months’ imprisonment. Proceeding pro se, he now seeks a certificate of appealability 

(COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) to challenge the district court’s determination in its 

January 19, 2016, order that his recent motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set 

aside, or correct his sentence is an unauthorized second or successive motion, over 

which the district court lacks jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we deny a 

COA and dismiss the appeal. 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 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

June 30, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2045 Document: 01019649027 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 -

Mr. Davalos-Ponce has already filed one unsuccessful §2255 motion, so this is 

his second one. Furthermore, he did not obtain this court’s authorization to file a 

second or successive petition, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, 

the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion and dismissed 

it. The district court also denied Mr. Davalos-Ponce’s alternative request that his 

motion be treated as an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 because he did not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). 

Because his habeas petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, 

Mr. Davalos-Ponce can obtain a COA only if he shows “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 bypass the constitutional question because we can readily dispose of 

this case based on the procedural one. See id. 

 Even reviewing Mr. Davalos-Ponce’s application with the liberality due pro se 

applicants, see Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010), there is 

nothing debatable about the district court’s procedural ruling. “A district court does 

not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2255 . . . claim 

until this court has granted the required authorization.” In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 

1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Mr. Davalos-Ponce had not obtained the 

Appellate Case: 16-2045 Document: 01019649027 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 -

required authorization when he filed his successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we 

deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

Mr. Davalos-Ponce’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees is 

granted. Only prepayment of fees is waived, not the fees themselves. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). Mr. Davalos-Ponce is still required to pay all filing and docketing fees 

in full. See id. § 1915(b). 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-2045 Document: 01019649027 Date Filed: 06/30/2016 Page: 3