W e cons true pro sep le a d in g s lib e ra lly. L e db e tte rv . Cityo f T o p eka, Ka n ., 318 1 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

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

### Ju ly18,2006 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 UNT I E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J OS E L OP E Z - GUZ M AN, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3031 ( D . C . N os . 05- C V - 3412- SA C and 0 2 - CR- 4 0 1 3 3 - S AC) (D . K ansas)

ORDE R DE NYI NG LE AVE TO P ROCE ED ON APP EAL INF O R M A PA U PER IS , DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY , AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. J os e Lopez- G uzman, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a 28 1 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ecthi s s ent ence . T he di s t r i ct- 2-

cour tdi s m i s s ed the mot i on on J anuary5, 2006. L opez- G uzman t hen pet i t i oned th e d istric t co u rt fo r a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) a n d fo r p e rm iss io n to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u

p e ris ( ifp ) on appea l . T he courtdeni ed both r eques t s . T he appl i cat i on fora C O A w as deni ed bec aus e Lopez- G uzman fai l ed t o m ake a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. T h e c o u rt d e n ied h is r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp beca us e he fai l ed t o s how t he exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues he r ai s ed on a p p e a l. See 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 3) . H e r enew ed hi s pet i t i on fora C O A and l eave t o pr ocee d ifp in th is C o u rt . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ); F ED . R . A PP . P. 22 (b) (1) , 24 (a) (5) . W e, t oo , den yhis request s. B ackgr ound O n A pr i l 20, 2004, L opez- G uzman w as s ent ence d t o 120 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entaft erpl eadi ng gui l t y , pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , t o one countof pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 5. 9 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . Pur s uantt o a r es ervat i on i n t he pl ea a gr eement , he fi l ed a d ir e c t a p p e a l a lle g in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . W e a ffir m e d a n d th e S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d c e rt io ra ri o n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 5 . Uni t ed St at es v. Lopez - G uz m an , 1 4 5 F e d . A p p x . 6 2 7 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 3 0 4 (2 0 0 5 ). O n O ct ober26, 2005, L opez- G uzman fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de or co rrect his sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . H e c lai m ed the d istri ct co u rt- 3-

w a s w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to tryo r se n ten c e h im b e c a u se h is in d ictm e n t fa iled to i dent i fyan el ementof hi s offe ns e. Speci fi cal l y , he as s er t ed the i ndi ctm entfai l ed t o cont ai n s ubs ect i on ( b) of 21 U . S. C . § 841, t he s ect i on w hi ch s et s for t h t he penal t yfora vi ol at i on of § 841( a) ( 1) . L opez- G uzman al s o cl ai m ed hi s at t or ney re n d e re d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in a llo w in g h im to p lea d to a fa u lty in d ictm e n t. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed hi s m ot i on, concl udi ng i tfel l w i t hi n t he s cope of hi s pl ea a gr eementw ai ver, h is w aive r w as k n o w ing an d v o lun tary , an d there w oul d be no mi s carr i age of j us t i ce i f the w ai verw er e enfor ced. A s s t at ed above , t he di s t r i ctcour tal s o deni ed Lopez- G uzman’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and for l eave t o pr ocee d ifp o n ap p ea l ( ce rt ify ing the a p p ea l w as n o t t ak en in g o o d fa ith ). C e rtifica te o

f Ap p e a la b ili ty A C O A is a ju ri s d ic tio n a l p re -r e q u is ite to o u r r e v ie w . Mi l l er - E lv. C o c kre ll, 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l i s s ue a CO A onl yi f Lopez- G uzman m a k e s “ 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.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T o m a k e th is s h o w in g , h e m u st e sta b lish th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [byt he di s t r i ct cour t ] i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” S la c kv . McD a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ns ofaras t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , L opez- G uzman m us tdemonstr at e both “thatj ur i s t s of r eas onT h ein d ictm e nt stated : 2 O no r ab o ut th e1 3 thd ayo f S ep temb e r, 2 0 0 2 , . . . Jo se L o p e z -G uzm an , did kn o w in g lyan dintentio n a llyp o ss e ss , w ith intent to distrib ute, ap p ro x im ately 5. 9 ki l o grams o f c o c a in e . . . in v i o l ati o n o f Titl e 2 1 , Unite d Stat es C ode, Secti on 841( a) ( 1) , w ith referenceto T itl e 21, U nited StatesC ode, Secti ons

- 4- w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtand thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id. “W her e a pl ai n pr ocedur al b a r i s p re s e n t a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is c o rr e c t to in v o k e it to d is p o s e o f th e c a s e , a re a so n a b le ju rist c o u ld n o t co n c lu d e e ith e r th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in di s m i s s i ng t he pet i t i on ort hatt he pet i t i oners houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Id. W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c lea r e rro r a n d its l egal conclusi on s de novo . E ngl is h v. C ody, 2 4 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). L o p e z -G u z m a n a rg u e s , in tera lia , t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n concl udi ng he had w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o col l at er al l yat t ack hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence vi a hi s pl ea agr eement . H e cont ends hi s i ndi ctm ent ’ s defe cti s j ur i s di ct i onal and he c oul d not vol unt ar i l ypl ead gui l t yt o an defect i ve i ndi ctm ent . A ft ercar eful l ycons i der i ng t he r ecor d and Lopez- G uzman’ s ar gum ent s , w e conc l ude he ha s fai l ed t o m ake a s u ffic ie n t s h o w in g th a t h e is e n title d to a C O A o n a n yo f h is c la im s . C ont r aryt o hi s as s er t i ons , t he i ndi ctm ents t at es t he type of c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance , i t s w ei ght , and r efe r ence s t he pena l t ys ect i on he cl ai m s i s m i s s i ng. 2841(b) ( 1) (A ) and 812, and Titl e 18, U nited StatesC ode, Secti on 2.

(R . V o l. I , D o c . 3 .)

- 5- T hus , hi s couns el w as noti neffect i ve i n al l ow i ng hi m t o pl ead gui l t y . I n addi t i on, he admi t t ed t o eac h el ementof the cr i m e pr i ort o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s acc ept ance of h is p lea . F in a lly , ev e n if th e in d ictm e n t w a s d e fe c tiv e , L o p e z -G u z m a n w a iv e d a ll n o n -j u ri s d ic tio n a l d e fe n s e s w h e n h e e n te re d h is v o lu n ta ry p le a o f g u ilty. Uni t ed St at es v. F l

ynn , 309 F. 3d 736, 739 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . H i s cl ai m ed omi s s i on does n o t r a is e ju ri s d ic tio n a l im p lic a tio n s . Uni t ed Stat es v. C ot t on , 535 U . S. 625, 631 ( 2002) ( “[T] hi s C our ts om e t i m e ago de par t ed fr om [the] vi ew t hati ndi ctm ent d e fe c ts a re ‘ju risd ictio n a l.’”); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. P et t igr ew , 346 F. 3d 1139, 1 1 4 6 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ [ T ]h e o m iss io n o f d ru g q u a n tityf

ro m ju ryin stru c tio n s is nota j ur i s di ct i onal err or . ”) . T her efor e, hi s obj ect i on t o t he i ndi ctm entw as w ai ved w hen he vol unt ar i l yent er ed hi s gui l t ypl ea a nd fel l w i t hi n t he s cope of t he pl ea a gr eementw ai verof hi s r i ghtt o col l at er al l yat t ack hi s convi ct i on. T he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r o f d is m is s a l is n o t r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . Sl ack, 529 U . S. at 4 8 4 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we DE NY L o p e z - Gu z ma n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra CO A. Re q u e s tt o Pr o c e e dI

FP I n addi t i on, w e r ej ectL opez- G uzman’ s r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp o n a p p e a l. “W e have pr evi ous l yconcl uded that28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s corpus and 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 p ro c e e d in g s, a n d a p p e a ls o f th o se p ro c e e d in g s, a re n o t ‘c iv il- 6-

act i ons ’ forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( a) ( 2) and ( b) . ” McInt os h v. Uni t ed St at es P ar ol e C om m ’ n. , 115 F. 3d 809, 811 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) . H ow ever , L opezG uzman “r emai ns obl i gat ed t o compl yw i t h, and i s s ubj ectt o, al l of the other pr ovi s i ons of 28 U . S. C . § 1915. ” Id . at812. T hi s i ncl udes a r equi r ementt hathe p re s e n t a re a s o n e d , n o n -f ri v o lo u s a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. D eBardel eben v . Q ui nl an , 9 3 7 F .2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); s ee 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) . B eca us e he ha s nots at i s fi ed thi s r equi r ement , hi s pendi ng r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp is D E N IE D . L o p e z -G u z m a n is o rd e re d to im m e d ia te ly p a yth e f u ll filin g fe e . K i nnel lv. G r aves , 265 F. 3d 1125, 1129 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( di s m i s s al of an a ppeal does not re lie v e a p p e lla n t o f

th e o b lig a tio n to p a yth e a p p e lla te filin g fe e in f u ll) . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge