T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a s e , re s ju d ic a ta , a n d c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. W e l i beral l ycon strue M r. C ruz- L op ez' s pr o s e ap p lic a tio n . See Cum m i ngs 1 v. E vans , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC 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. AU GU STINE C RU Z- LOPEZ, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4058 ( D . C . N os . 2: 06- C V - 104- T C and 2 : 0 4 - CR- 2 5 2 - 0 2 - TC) ( U t ah)



### ORDER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A ugus t i ne C ruz- L opez, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed the 1 pr es entappl i cat i on fora ce rt i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( C O A ) t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s 28 § U . S. C . 2255 m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de, or c o rre c t h is s e n ten c e . W e se e n o b a sis fo r g ra n tin g a C O A a n dd e n yth is appl i cat i on. M r . C ruz- L opez f

i l ed a § 2255 pe t i t i on i n di s tr i ctcourtcl ai m i ng i neffect i ve- 2-

assistan ce o f c o u n sel. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied th is pe ti ti o n , n o ti n g that M r. C ru z -L o p e z d e c lar e d h is u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t in a d v a n c e o f h is g u ilty p le a a n d w a iv e d h is ri g h t to c o lla te ra lly a tta c kh is s e n te n c e u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 . I n acc or dance w i th 28 U . S. C . § 2253, he now s eeks a C O A t o appea l the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

h is p e titio n . Mille r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 5 (2 0 0 3 ). Is s u a n c e o f

a C O A is ju ri s d ic tio n a l. Id . at335- 36. A C O A can i s s ue onl y“i f the ap p lic a n t h a s m a d e a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A pet i t i oners at i s fi es thi s s t andar d bydemonstr at i ng that ju rists o f

re a so n c o u ldd isa g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt' s re so lu tio n o f h is co n sti tuti o n al claim s o r th at j u ri sts co u ld co n clud e the issue s p rese n ted a re adequa t e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Mi l le r - El , 537 U . S. at 327. Fi r s t , M r . C ruz- L opez a s s ert s a Uni ted States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , cl ai m thathe ac know l edges has “her et ofor e notbeen r ai s ed. ” A pl t . B r . at 4 . A s th is is s u e w a s n o t r a is e d b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , it is w a iv e d . War es v. Si m m ons , 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). Second, M r . C ruz- L opez a s s ert s he has been de ni ed tr ans cr i pt s and r ecor ds nece s s aryforthe deve l opm entof hi s habea s pet i t i on. A s w e not ed i n a pr evi ous appea l , “[M r . ] C ruz- L opez mustfi l e a s epar at e mot i on i n hi s § 2255 pr ocee di ng” to o b ta in th e s e d o c u m e n ts . Uni ted States v. C r uz -Lopez , N o . 0 5 - 4 2 6 3 , 2 0 0 6 WL 89 54 94 at*1 (10th C i r. A pr. 7, 20 06 ). T here i s nothi ng i n the r ecord t o sug gest- 3-

M r. C ru z -L o p e z m a d e s u c h a m o tio n in th e s e p ro c e e d in g s . T h ird , h e a rg u e s h is c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e in re c o m m e n d in g h e a c c e p t a pl ea a gr eement . A l though an i neffect i venes s cl ai m w i th r es pectt o a pl ea a g re e m e n t is n o t b a rr e d b ya n o th e rw is e v a lid w a iv e r, s ee Uni ted States v. C ocke rham , 237 F. 3d 1179, 1184 ( 10th C i r . 2001) , M r . C ruz- L opez pr ovi ded no fa c tu a l su p p o rt in h is p e tit io n fo r h is a ss e rtio n th a t co u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e in advi s i ng hi m as t o hi s pl ea a gr eement . H e as s ert ed onl ythathi s couns el “fa i l ed t o pr ovi de me w i th the document s thatw oul d help m e t o under s t and mypl ea agr eement . ” R ec. , vol . I , M ot i on at5. A s the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed:

H o w e v e r, w h e n M r. C ru z -L o p e z ’ e x e c u ted h is S tate m e n t in A dvance of Pl ea of

G ui l ty , he r epr es ent ed t o the court : “I have dis cussed this case and this plea w i th m yl aw y er as m uch as I w i sh t o. I am sat i s fi ed w i th m yl aw y er . M ydeci s i on t o ent erthi s pl ea w a s m a d e a f

terf u ll an d c a re f

u l th o u g h t, w ith a d v ice o f c o u n se l, w ith a ful l under s t andi ng of m yr i ght s , w i th a ful l under s t andi ng of the fac t s and ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e an w i th a ful l under s t andi ng of th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

th is p le a . . . .” Id. , O rd e r a t 2 . W e a re a t a lo ss to u n d e rsta n dw h a t “d o c u m e n ts” c o u n se l co u ld h a v e p ro v id e d M r. C ru z -L o p e z to h e lp h im u n d e rsta n dh is p lea a g re e m e n t. Fi nal l y , M r . C ruz- L opez c ont ends the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n appl y i ng a

“ p ro c e d u ra l b a r o f

th e 1 -y e a r lim itatio n s s tatu te.” A p lt. B r. at 6 . C o n tra ryto th is a s s e rt io n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rto rd e r i n c lu d e dn o m e n tio n o f a s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . M r . C ruz- L opez ha s notdemonstr at ed thatj ur i s t s of r eas on coul d di s agr ee wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s r e s o l u t i o n o f h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms . Ac c o r d i n g l ywe- 4-

DE NY h i s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge