This order is not bindingprec edent, e x cept under the doc trines of lawof the c ase, res * judic ata , a

nd c oll ate ral e stopp e l. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 11, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 2147 ANDR E S CA RMONA- M I RA NDA, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. CV
- 05
- 04 84
- RB / W D S) ( D. C. No . CR- 0 5 - 0 7 2 0
- RB) ( D . N ew M exi co)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY *
B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A n d re s C a rm o n a -M ira n d a , ap p e a rin g p ro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( C O A ) i n or dert o chal l enge the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng w i t houtpr ej udi ce hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i ons t o vaca t e, m odi fy , ors etas i de hi s s ent ence . B eca us e C arm onaM i randa h as fai l ed to sat i sfyt he st and ards for the is suance of a C O A , w e den yhis request
an d d ism iss th e m att er. O n A p ril 6 , 2 0 0 5 , C a rm o n a -M ira n d a w a s in d icte d o n o n e c o u n t o f ill e g a l re e n tryin to t he U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ng depor t at i on aft erconvi ct i on foran aggr avat e d f e l o n y , i n v i o l a t i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) , and ( b) ( 2) . W hi l e the cha r ge w as s t i l l pendi ng, C arm ona-2

M i r anda f

i l ed thr ee mot i ons w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t : a m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm entand t w o m ot i ons forr el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. I n al l t hr ee mot i ons , C arm ona- M i r anda all eg ed that h e h ad b ee n im p rop erly d ep o rt ed in ab sen ti a o n O ctob er 3 , 2 0 0 0 . O n F eb rua ry 2, 2006, fol l ow i ng t he deni al of hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm ent , C arm ona- M i r anda ent er ed a c ondi t i onal pl ea of gui l t y , s peci fi cal l yr es ervi ng t he ri ghtt o appea l t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deni al of t hat m ot i on. O n M ar ch 10, 2006, pr i or t o s ent enci ng, t he magi s t r at e j udge
as s i gned t o t he ca s e r ecomm ended thatC arm ona- M i r anda’ s § 2 2 5 5 m ot i ons be di s m i s s ed
w i t houtpr ej udi ce. I n doi ng s o, t he magi s t r at e j udge conc l uded thatt he i s s ues as s er t ed i n t he § 2 25 5 m oti on s w ere i den t i cal t o the i ssues r ai sed i n C arm on a-M i randa’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss t he i ndi ctm ent , and t hus coul d pr oper l ybe r ai s ed on di r ectappea l byC arm ona- M i r anda. T he di s t r i ct co u rt s ubs equent l yadopt ed the magi s t r at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on, di s m i s s ed the § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n s wi t h o u tp r e j u d i c e , a n d d e n i e d Ca r mo n a - M i r a n d a ’ s r e q u e s tf o ra CO A. C a rm o n a -M ira n d a h a s n o w re n e w e d h is re q u e st f o r a C O A w ith th is c o u rt. W here , as h ere, a di s t r i ctcour tdeni es a § 2255 mot i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , “a C O A sh o u ld iss u e w h e n th e p riso n e r s h o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld f

in d it debat abl e w hether t he [m ot i on] s t at es a val i d cl ai m of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtand th a t ju rists o f

re a so n w o u ld f

in d it d e b a ta b le w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt w a s c o rre c t in its pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) . W e conc l ude that C arm ona- M i r anda cannot s at i s fy t hi s l at t err equi r ement . T o begi n w i t h, C arm ona- M i r anda fi l ed hi s § 2255 m ot i ons befor e he w as s ent ence d byt he di s t r i ctcour t . T hus , C arm onaM i r anda f

ai l ed t o s at i s fyt he thr es hol d r equi r ementof § 2255 thathe be “in cu stodyunder3

s ent ence of a cour t es t abl i s hed by A ct of C ongr es s . . . . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2255. E ven i gnor i ng t hi s pr obl em, C arm ona- M i r anda f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h any“extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” that
w oul d have j us t i fi ed the di s t r i ctcour trul i ng on t he § 2255 mot i ons , rathe r t han r equi r i ng C arm on a-M i randa t o p ursue a dir ectapp eal foll ow i ng sent encing. U nit ed S t at es v. P row s, 448 F. 3d 1223, 1228 ( 10t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . I ndeed, t he pr eci s e i s s ues r ai s ed i n C arm onaM i r and a’s § 2255 m ot i ons had al r eadybeen de ci ded byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n deny i ng C arm ona- M i r anda’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm ent . T hus , t he pr opercour s e, as not ed by t he di s t r i ctcour t , w as for C arm ona- M i r anda t o pur s ue a di r ectappea l fol l ow i ng s ent enci ng. T h e re q u e st f

o r a C O A is D E N IE D a n d th e m a tter is D IS M IS S E D . T h e m o ti o n to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u

p e ris i s GR ANT E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge