Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02158/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert S. Gutierrez
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

In re: 

ROBERT S. GUTIERREZ, 

 Movant. 

No. 15-2158 

(D.C. Nos. 1:08-CV-00711-RB-LFG & 

2:05-CR-00217-RB-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, EBEL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Robert S. Gutierrez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks authorization to 

file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his 

sentence. Because Gutierrez has not met the requisite conditions for authorization under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), we deny authorization. 

In March 2006, a jury convicted Gutierrez of possession with intent to distribute 

500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Gutierrez appealed, and we affirmed. See United States v. 

Sedillo-Gutierrez, 263 F. App’x 659, 662 (10th Cir. 2008). In July 2008, Gutierrez filed 

a § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief, and we denied a certificate of 

appealability. See United States v. Gutierrez, 458 F. App’x 748, 748 (10th Cir. 2012). 

Gutierrez now seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. 

He claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 8, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2158 Document: 01019503985 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 Page: 1 
2 

affidavit supporting the criminal complaint, the complaint, an unsigned indictment, and a 

search warrant. 

We may authorize his motion only if it relies on (1) “newly discovered evidence 

that, 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”; or (2) “a new rule of constitutional law, made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Gutierrez must make a 

prima facie showing that he can satisfy the gate-keeping requirements of § 2255(h). 

See In re Shines, 696 F.3d 1330, 1332 (10th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). “If in light of the 

documents submitted with the application it appears reasonably likely that the application 

satisfies the stringent requirements for the filing of a second or successive [§ 2255 

motion], we shall grant the application.” Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1028 (10th Cir. 

2013). 

Gutierrez first asserts that McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013), 

announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). 

In McQuiggin, the Supreme Court held that, when ruling on a first federal habeas 

application, a district court has equitable authority to apply a miscarriage-of-justice 

exception to the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) based on a claim of 

actual innocence. Id. at 1931, 1934-35. But McQuiggin applied equitable, rather than 

constitutional, principles. See id. at 1931; see also United States v. Williams, 790 F.3d 

Appellate Case: 15-2158 Document: 01019503985 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 Page: 2 
3 

1059, 1069-70 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting McQuiggin “evaluat[ed] the courts’ equitable 

authority to prevent a miscarriage of justice”). Thus, Gutierrez’s claims based on 

McQuiggin do not rely on “a new rule of constitutional law,” as required by § 2255(h)(2). 

See In re Everett, 797 F.3d 1282, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding McQuiggin did not 

announce a new rule of constitutional law where Supreme Court “expressly stated that its 

ruling was an equitable one”). 

Gutierrez also contends that his claims are based on “newly discovered evidence,” 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). He asserts that he recently discovered that the indictment in his 

case was redacted, and he maintains that the unredacted indictment conflicts with the 

unsigned, redacted version. Gutierrez contends that the unredacted indictment, “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 [him] guilty of 

the offense,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). But Gutierrez has only provided this court with 

evidence that an unredacted indictment exists; he has not submitted the unredacted 

indictment to support his new-evidence claim under § 2255(h)(1).1

 Based on the 

documents Gutierrez has submitted, it does not appear “reasonably likely that the 

application satisfies the stringent requirements for the filing of a second or successive 

[§ 2255 motion].” Case, 731 F.3d at 1028. 

 1

 Gutierrez asserts that he has tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of the 

unredacted indictment from the district court. That court denied his first motion because 

he did not have a pending case, nor did he provide any reason why the document would 

assist him. Gutierrez has filed a second motion seeking a copy of the unredacted 

indictment, which remains pending in the district court. 

Appellate Case: 15-2158 Document: 01019503985 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 Page: 3 
4 

Accordingly, we deny Gutierrez’s request for authorization to file a second or 

successive § 2255 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: 15-2158 Document: 01019503985 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 Page: 4