UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JOEL CORDOVA-ORDAZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-2175 (D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00805-RB-SCY and 2:14-CR-03440-RB-1) (D. N. Mex.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Joel Cordova-Ordaz, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring a COA to appeal an order denying a § 2255 petition). M r. Cordova-Ordaz also

* This order is not binding precedent, ex cept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. A pp. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Because Mr. Cordova-Ordaz is proceed ing pro se, we cons true his filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also United States v. Pinson , 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e must construe [a pro se litigant’s] arguments liberally; th is rule of liberal constructi on stops, however, at the point at which we begin to serve as his advocate.”). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 3, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis . Exercising jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we deny both requests and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND In April 2010, Mr. Cordova-Ordaz pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine greater than 500 grams in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 in the Western District of Texas. He was sent enced to 18 months in prison followed by four years of supervised release. In October 2014, the court transferred juri sdiction of Mr. Cordova-Ordaz’s term of supervised release to the Dist rict of New Mexico. In Marc h 2015, the district court in New Mexico revoked Mr. Cordova -Ordaz’s supervised release and sentenced him to four months in prison to run concurrently to anot her sentence imposed in a separate criminal case in the District of New Mexico. In September 2015, Mr. Cordova-Ordaz file d a § 2255 motion in the District of New Mexico, challenging his convi ction and sentence imposed in the Western District of Texas. The district court denied his moti on, concluding it lacked jurisdiction under § 2255(a).
II. DISCUSSION When a district court dismisses a § 22 55 motion on procedural grounds, we will issue a COA only if the movant shows it is “debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 ( 2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and th e district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the- 3 - case, a reasonable jurist coul d not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner sh ould be allowed to proceed further.” Id

. Section 2255(a) permits a prisoner in cu stody to “move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set asid e or correct the sentence.” Any other district court lacks jurisdiction. United States v. Condit , 621 F.2d 1096, 1097 (10t h Cir. 1980) (“Jurisdiction lies only in ‘the court wh ich imposed the sentence.’” (quoting § 2255(a))). When a prisoner was convicted and sentence d in one court but then transferred to the supervisory control of a second court, only the first court has jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion attacking the underly ing conviction and sentence. See id. (finding that after a federal court in Oklahoma convicted and sentenced a prisoner and transferred supervisory control to a federal court in California, the Oklahoma court had exclusive jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion challenging th e underlying proceedings in Oklahoma). As we explained in Condit , the “practical justifications for [this] result are strong.” Id. The first court more likely has “personal familiarity with the case,” and the “potential witnesses [likely] reside” near it. Id. at 1098 n.3 (quotations omitted). Moreover, “[i]f other circuits were to become the situses for rout ine collateral attacks on the procedures followed by district courts of the [circuit wher e the first court is lo cated], there would be a substantial danger of inconsistent, even contradictory, decisions.” Id. at 1098. The district court’s ruling is not debatable under Condit

.- 4 - III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny Mr. Cordova-Ordaz’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge