Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08003/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heriberto Garcia-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

HERIBERTO GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-8003 

(D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-00061-WFD-1 & 

1:14-CV-00183-NDF) 

(D. Wyo.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS*

 

Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Heriberto Garcia-Rodriguez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his third 

motion attacking his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for lack of jurisdiction. He 

also seeks leave to proceed in this court in forma pauperis (IFP). Exercising 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), we deny Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez a 

COA and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to proceed IFP. 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 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

May 22, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-8003 Document: 01019434792 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

 The district court thoroughly reviewed Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez’s January 2004 

conviction, his mandatory life sentence, and his two prior § 2255 motions. See D.C. 

Doc. 7, at 1-3. The court also thoroughly explained why his current § 2255 motion 

was successive and why the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it without this 

court’s prior authorization. Id. at 3-5. The court declined to transfer the motion to 

this court for authorization because Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez failed to meet either of the 

statutory tests for authorization. Id. at 5-7. The court therefore dismissed the motion 

for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 7. 

 A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of the district court’s 

decision. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). We will issue a COA 

“only if [Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez] has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Because the district court denied his 

§ 2255 motion on procedural grounds, we will grant a COA only if the district court’s 

procedural ruling is reasonably debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). We conclude that it is not debatable for the reasons thoroughly explained by 

the district court. In his current request for a COA, Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez does not 

provide a basis for granting a COA. 

 “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). When presented with 

an unauthorized second or successive application, the district court has the option to 

Appellate Case: 15-8003 Document: 01019434792 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

transfer the application to this court if a transfer is in the interest of justice or dismiss 

it for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 1252. The district court decided to dismiss, clearly 

explaining why. Nothing before us indicates that any reasonable jurist would 

disagree with that decision. 

 Accordingly, we deny Mr. Garcia-Rodriguez’s application for a COA and 

dismiss this appeal. We deny his motion to proceed IFP. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-8003 Document: 01019434792 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 3