FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
LEZM OND C . M ITC HELL,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 20-99010 D.C . Nos. 3:20-c v-08217-DGC -ESW 3:01-c r-01062-DGC -1
OPINION
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 23, 2020 *
B e fore : Sa

ndra S. Ikuta , M o rgan B . C hriste n, a nd Andre w D. Hurwitz , C irc uit Judge s . Pe r C uriam
Le z m ond M itc h e ll se e k s a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a l a bility so tha t he m ay a ppe a l the d istric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his m otion to vac ate , se t a side , or c o rre c t his se nte nc e 

# FIL ED AUG 23 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255. 1 B e c a use the m otion did not m

a k e “ a substa

ntia l showing of the de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right,” 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(c )(2), we de ny a
c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility
. B e c a use we have de sc ribe d the fa c ts of this c a se in de ta il in thre e prior opinions, se e ge ne rally

Mitc he l l v . Unite d State

s , 958 F.3d 775 (9th C ir. 2020); Mitc he ll v . Unite d State

s , 790 F.3d 881 (9th C i r. 2015); Unite d State s v . Mitc he ll , 502 F.3d 931 (9th C ir. 2007), we do not repe at the m he re and inste a d turn to the
m atte r be fore us. On August 20, 2020, Mitc h e ll m ove d in distric t c ourt to va c ate , se t a side , or c orre c t his se nte nc e unde r § 2255 or, in the a l te rnat ive , unde r § 2241. His m otion a sse rte d tha

t a re port issue d on August 12, 2020, by the Inte r-Am e ric an C om m ission on Hum

an R i ghts (IAC HR )— an orga niz ation form e d unde r the
a uspic e s of the Orga

niz at ion of Am e ric an State s (OAS)— “ c re ate d rights in M itc he ll unde r inte rnat iona l la wtha t a re binding on the

Unite d State s for two
re a s ons: (1) be c a

use the y are de rive d dire c tly from the OAS C h arte r, a tre aty

1 The distric t c ourt e nte re d a n orde r de ny ing M itc he ll’ s “ M otion to Va c ate , Se t Aside or C orre c t Se nte nc e by a Pe rson in Fe d e ra l C ustody Pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255, in the

Alte rnative , M otion for R e lie f Pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2241,” on August 21, 2020, a

nd the distric t c ourt e nte re d an am e n de d orde r the ne xt da y to “ c o rre c t [] m inor e rrors in a n d m ake [] m inor wording c ha nge s to theve rsion file d on August 21, 2020.”

The re is no m ate ria l diffe re nc e be twe e n the two orde rs, so we sim ply c onside r the substa

nc e of the distric t c ourt’ s ruling, a s e m bodie d in both orde rs. 2within them e aning of theU.S. C onstitution; a nd (2) be c a

use the y are de rive d, through theOAS C ha

rte r, from the Am e ric an De c la

ra tion, a sta te m e nt of hum an rights norm s the Unite d State s ha s not only a dopte d, but he lpe d to dra ft.” B e c a use the IAC HR

c onc lude d tha

t M itc he ll’ s tria l a

nd se nte nc e viola

te d M itc he ll’ s rights unde r the Am e ric a

n De c l a ra tion, M itc he ll a

rgue d, his c o nvic tion a

nd de ath
se nte nc e m

ust be va c ate d, he m

ust be re le a s e d or give n a ne w tria l, a

nd he c annot be se nte nc e d to de at

h a fte r a ne w tria l. The distric t c ourt rule d tha t it ha d jurisdic tion to c onside r M itc he ll’ s § 2255
m otion a n d tha t the m otion wa s not a

n im prope r “ se c ond or suc c e s sive ” m otion. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2255(h). 2 On the m e rits, thec ourt re j e c te d M itc he ll’ s a

rgum e nt that e ithe r the OAS C ha

rte r or the Am e ric an De c la ra tion m a ke s a n IAC HR de c ision a s to a

fe d e ra l c rim ina l c a se binding a s a m atte r of la

w. The distric t c ourt

2 The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic tion be c a use M itc he ll’ s m otion wa s a

n im p rope r “ se c ond or suc c e ssive ” m otion, for whic h M itc he ll did not ha

ve the ne c e s sa

ry a uthoriz ation. 28 U.S.C . § 2255(h). B e c a use we c onc lude tha

t M i tc he ll’ s m otion doe s not m ake “ a substa ntia l showing of the de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right,” id. § 2253(c )(2), we ne e d not re a c h this issue , se e Lope z v . Ry an , 678 F.3d 1131, 1139 n.2 (9th C ir. 2012); se e also Slack v . Mc D anie l , 529 U.S. 473, 485 (2000). 3the re fore de nie d M itc he ll’ s § 2255 m otion a nd a m otion to sta

y the e xe c ution. 3 The distric t c ourt a l so de nie d a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility
. M itc he ll m a

y not a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r unle ss we issue a
c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility
. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(1)(B ). “ A c e rtific ate of
a ppe a la bility m ay issue . . . only

if the a p plic ant ha s m a de a

substa ntia l showing of the d e nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right.” Id. § 2253(c )(2). To sa tisfy this sta nda rd, the
a pplic ant m

ust show tha

t “ jurists of re a son c ould disagre e with thedistric t c ourt’ s
re solution of his [c a se ] or tha t jurists c ould c onc lude the issue s pre s e nte d a re
a de quate to de se rve e nc oura ge m e nt to proc e e d furthe r.” Mille r-El v . C o c k re ll , 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In m a k ing this de te rm ination, we are lim ite d “ t o a thre shold inquiry into theunde rly ing m e rit of [the ] c la im s,” Buc k v . Dav is , 137 S. C t. 759, 774 (2017) (quoting M

ille r-El , 537 U.S. a

t 327), a nd this inquiry

“ s hould be de c ide d without ‘ full c onside ra tion of the fa c t ua l or le ga l ba se s a dduc e d in support of the c la im s,’ ” id. at 773 (quoting Mille r-El , 537 U.S. a t 336). W e c onc lude tha

t re a s ona ble jurists would not find de bata ble the distric t
c ourt’ s c o nc lusion tha

t the IAC HR ’ s de c ision is not binding in fede ra l c ourt. First,

3 In his re p l y

brie f, M itc he ll a

rgue d tha t he wa s “ e ntitle d to bring his c la im unde r se c tion 2241”if the distric t c ourt he ld tha t his m otion wa s a

n im prope r “ se c ond or suc c e ssive ” m o t ion. The distric t c ourt did not addre ss this issue give n its c o nc lusion tha

t M itc he ll’ s m otion wa s not “ se c ond or suc c e ssive , ” an d be c a use M itc he ll doe s not ra ise this issue be fore us, we do not c onside r it.

4the d istric t c o urt c onc lude d tha t IAC H R rulings do not ha

ve binding power within the U nite d State s by

virtue of the OAS C ha

rte r be c a use “ [t] he OAS C ha

rte r is not
se lf-e x e c uting, a

nd C ongre ss ha s pa sse d

no sta tute to im ple m e nt it.” The distric t
c ourt c orre c tly

note d tha t “ e ve ry fe de ra l c ourt of a

ppe a ls tha

t ha s a ddre sse d this issue ‘ h a s c onc lude d tha

t IAC HR de c isions do not ha

v e dom e stic le ga l forc e .’ ” Am . Orde r at 8–9 (c iting C arde nas v . Ste

phe ns , 820 F.3d 197, 203 (5th C i r. 2016); Tamay o v . Ste

phe ns , 740 F.3d 991, 997–98 (5th C ir. 2014) (pe r c uriam ); In re Hic k s , 375 F.3d 1237, 1241 n.2 (11th C i r. 2004); Garza v . Lappin , 253 F.3d 918, 925–26 (7th C ir. 2001); Roac h v . Aik e n , 781 F.2d 379, 381 (4th C ir. 1986) (pe r
c uriam )). Se c o nd, the distric t c ourt re je c te d M itc he l l’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t “ IAC HR de c isions a

re binding ‘ be c a

use the y are de rive d , through the OAS C ha rte r, from the Am e ric an De c la

ration’ ” on the ground tha t “ [t] he Am e ric an De c la

ra t ion ‘ is not a tre aty ’ ” and “ c re ate s no binding set of obliga tions.” The distric t c ourt a c c urate ly
e xpla ine d tha

t the IAC HR ’ s gove rning sta tute , the Statute of Inte r-Am e ric an C om m ission on Hum

an R i ghts, doe s not givethe IAC HR powe r to m ake binding rulings with re s pe c t to na tions, like the Unite d Stat e s, tha

t ha v e not ra tifie d the Am e ric an C onve ntion. Rathe r, the IAC HR ’ s a uthority is limite d to m aking nonbinding re c om

m e ndat ions for hum an-rights im prove m e nts. The se c onc lusions a re not re a sona

bly de bata ble
. 5In his m otion for a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility be fore us now, M itc he ll
re ite ra te s his a

rgum e nt tha

t the IAC HR ’ s fina l de c i sion ga ve him a tre aty -ba se d right to ha

ve the Unite d Stat e s re spe c t a nd e nforc e the IAC HR ’ s de te rm ination but provide s no m e aningful support for this c la im
. 4 Nor doe s M itc he ll ra ise any othe r
argum e nt tha

t would m ak e the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusions de b at a ble . Unde r the se
c irc um s ta nc e s , jurists of re a s on would not de bate whe the r M itc he ll’ s m otion m ake s

“ a substa ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right.” 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(c )(2). 5 Nor would they c onc lude tha t the “ i ssue s pre se n te d a

re a de quate to de se rve e nc oura ge m e nt to proc e e d furthe r.” Buc k, 137 S. C t. at 773 (quoting

4 The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t M itc he ll wa ive d the argum e nt, ra ise d for the first tim e in his reply

brie f, tha t e ve n if the OAS C ha

rte r is not se lf-e xe c uting, it still m a y be the sourc e of e nforc e a ble rights. Re a sona

ble jurists would not de

bate the c ourt’ s c o nc lusion. Se e Zamani v . C a rne s , 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ The distric t c ourt ne e d not c o nside r argum e n ts ra ise d for the first tim e in a re ply brie f.” ). In a

ny e ve nt, the c ourt re a sona

bly de t e rm ine d

tha t M itc h e ll fa ile d to c ite any la ngua g e in the C ha

rte r e sta blishing tha

t IAC H R de c isions c ould be the sourc e of e nforc e a

ble rights in fe d e ra l c ourt, a nd in thea

bse nc e of suc h la

n gua g e , no re a s ona ble jurist would a

gre e with M itc he ll’ s a

rgum e nt. Se e Me de llin v

. Te x as , 552 U.S. 491, 504–06 (2008); F lore s-N ov a v . Attorne

y Ge n. of U.S. , 652 F.3d 488, 494 (3d C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ).

5 W e a ssum e without de c iding tha t M itc he ll’ s m otion ra ise d a c la im tha t he wa s de nie d a

c onstitutiona

l right. Se e

, e .g. , Me d

e llin v . Dre tk

e , 544 U.S. 660, 666 (2005) (pe r c uriam ); Slac k, 529 U.S. a t 483-84; Unite d

State s v . Mik e l s , 236 F.3d 550, 551 (9th C ir. 2001); Murphy v . N e the rland, 116 F.3d 97, 100 (4th C ir. 1997). 6Mille r-El , 537 U.S. a t 327). B e c a

use M itc he ll ha s not m e t the re quire m e nts for a
c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility , we m ay

not issueone . CE RT IFICAT E O F APPE AL AB IL IT Y DE N IE D
. 6

6 B e c a use we de c line to issuea

c e rtific ate of a

p pe a la b ility , M itc he ll m ay

not a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s orde r, se e 2 8 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(1)(B ), a nd is the re fore not e ntitle d to a

sta y pe nding a

ppe a l. Ac c ordingly , the M otion for a Sta y of Exe c ution is DE NIE D AS M O O T
. 7