Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08035/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Angel Ordaz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL ORDAZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-8035

(D.C. Nos. 2:15-CV-00004-NDF and

1:10-CR-329-NDF-3)

(D. Wyo.)

_________________________________

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This case grew out of the government’s investigation of a suspected drug

dealer, Mr. Miguel Ordaz. The investigation led to a search of Mr. Ordaz’s house,

where agents found a black bag containing a chemical substance and a machine

gun. This discovery led to a conviction on multiple charges, including (1)

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and (2) possession of a

machine gun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

After unsuccessfully appealing, Mr. Ordaz moved for vacatur of the

conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that

! on the methamphetamine charge, his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to request a sample of the drug so that he could test it and

Appellate Case: 15-8035 Document: 01019498492 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 1 
! on the machine-gun charge, the evidence was insufficient because the

machine gun was inoperable and could not have been used to further

a drug trafficking crime.

The district court denied relief, and Mr. Ordaz wants to appeal. To do so, he

needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). The district

court declined to issue the certificate. Like the district court, we decline to issue

the certificate. As a result, we dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Ordaz’s Burden

We can issue a certificate of appealability only if Mr. Ordaz has made “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). To satisfy this requirement, Mr. Ordaz must show “that the

district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim was either ‘debatable or

wrong.’” Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

The Methamphetamine Charge

The first claim involves ineffective assistance of counsel on the charge

involving possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. This

conviction was based on the substance found in Mr. Ordaz’s bag. The government

ran tests, which identified the substance as a combination of methamphetamine

and a cutting agent (called “M.S.M.”). Mr. Ordaz believes that independent tests

would have showed that the substance consisted solely of the cutting agent.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-8035 Document: 01019498492 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 2 
If we were to entertain an appeal, Mr. Ordaz would need to show (1)

deficiency in his legal representation and (2) prejudice from that deficiency.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

Applying this test, the district court concluded that the claim fails under

United States v. Baca, 687 F.2d 1356, 1361 (10th Cir. 1982). There we rejected a

similar claim, reasoning that the attorney could have made a strategic decision to

bypass further testing because of uncertainty regarding the eventual results. 687

F.2d at 1360. If the results ended up positive, they would have strengthened the

government’s case. Id.

Under Baca, Mr. Ordaz’s claim is not reasonably debatable. At trial, his

attorney vigorously attacked the government’s tests. If the attorney were to obtain

his own tests, a positive result would have prevented this line of attack. Thus, our

precedent in Baca would lead any reasonable jurist to reject Mr. Ordaz’s claim.

The Machine-Gun Charge

Mr. Ordaz also argues that because the machine gun was inoperable, it

could not have been used to further a drug crime. But Mr. Ordaz raised the same

argument in his direct appeal, and a panel of our court rejected this argument.

United States v. Renteria, 720 F.3d 1245, 1255 (10th Cir. 2013).1

 Because we

1 Mr. Ordaz states that his appellate counsel failed to raise this issue in the

direct appeal. Appellant’s Br. at 17. Mr. Ordaz is mistaken, for his appellate

attorney challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in part because the machine

gun was inoperable:

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-8035 Document: 01019498492 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 3 
rejected the claim on the merits, Mr. Ordaz cannot renew the claim through a

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 291 (10th Cir. 1994).

Thus, no reasonable jurist could credit Mr. Ordaz’s reassertion of his argument

that the gun was inoperable.

Conclusion

In these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Ordaz’s claims are not 

In addition, testimony clearly shows that the weapon when seized

was found in “pieces.” Despite the government’s attempt to show that

the weapon could be reassembled quickly-by the way, by an expert, the

gun was nevertheless found in parts in a black duffel bag. In fact

testimony shows that a pin to connect the stock to the gun was missing.

ATF Agent Knapp testified that he supplied a pin to connect the stock

to the rest of the gun. Tr. Vol. XVI p. 40. He also testified that he

“experienced quite a few jams and misfires.” Id. p. 45.

Agent Knapp further testified that he had “to take a punch to the

extractor spring and basically straighten it out.” Id. Although he softens

the faults of the weapon with the statement that the gun still was potent

because he “still managed to fire one ten round automatic burst.” Id. at

45.

Miguel Angel Ordaz’ Opening Br. at 19-20, United States v. Renteria, 720 F.3d

1245 (10th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-8019). In rejecting the argument, we noted Mr.

Ordaz’s emphasis “on the fact that a missing pin [was] needed to assemble the

gun.” Renteria, 720 F.3d at 1255.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-8035 Document: 01019498492 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 4 
reasonably debatable. With this conclusion, we (1) decline to issue a certificate of

appealability and (2) dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-8035 Document: 01019498492 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 5