T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s ; neverthel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

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

### M ay25,2006 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, N o. 05- 2355 v . (D . o f N .M .) E DDI E GI OVANN I DE L E ONFERNA ND EZ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o. C I V - 05- 982- J P and CR - 04 - 11 80 - J P)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. **

E d d ie G io v a n n i D e L e o n -F e rn a n d e z , a fe d e ra l p riso n e r, se e k s a C e rtific a te of A ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l the deni al of hi s M ot i on T o V aca t e O rR educe S entence pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. S i nce h e app ears pro se , we c o n s tru e De L e o n -F e rn a n d e z ’s p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. See Cum m i ngs v. E vans , 161 F. 3d 610, 613-2-

(10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthata C O A s houl d noti s s ue beca us e D e Leon- Fernandez has notm ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e D E N Y th e C O A a n d D IS M IS S h is a p p e a l. I . Backg r ound I n 1996, D e Leon- Fernandez w as convi ct ed of de al i ng i n her oi n, an a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . H e w a s d e p o rte d f ro m th e U n ited S tate s to G u a tem a la in Au g u s to f

2 0 0 1 . Af

t e rh e r e tu rn e d i l l e g a l l yt o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s , De L e o n -F e rn a n d e z w a s c h a rg e d w ith re -e n tryo f a d e p o rte d a lien p re v io u sly convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyi n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) ( 1) - ( 2) and ( b) ( 2) . W i th as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el , he pl eade d gui l tyt o thi s char ge and w as s ent ence d t o 46 m onths of conf i nementfol l ow ed bytw o y ear s of s upervi s ed re le a s e . D e Leon- Fernandez , appea r i ng pro se , fi l ed a M ot i on T o V aca t e O rR educe Sent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D istric t o f

N e w M e x ico . In th e m o tio n , D e L e o n -F e rn a n d e z c laim e d th a t h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts h a d b e e n v io la te d b yth e in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f h is c o u n s e l. S p ec ifi ca ll y , D e L eo n -F ern an d ez asse rt ed that h is l aw y er sh o u ld h av e a rgu ed fo r a l ow ers ent ence underAppr endiv. New Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed D e Leon- Fernandez ' s pet i t i on bas ed on the fa ct th a t n o sh o w in g w a s m a d e th a t h is s e n ten c in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t if h is-3-

att o rne yh ad m ad e the arg u m en ts r aised in h is § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n . T h e d istri ct co u rt al s o deni ed hi s r eques tfora C O A . D e Leon- Fernandez r ai s es the s ame i s s ues on a p p e a l to th is c o u rt . II . A n a ly sis A ci r cui tcourtm ayi s s ue a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty“onl yi f the appl i cant h a s ma d e a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f th e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2253( c) ( 2) . W her e a di s tr i ctcourt“has r ej ect ed the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s on the m e rits,” a n a p p lica n t m e e ts th is s tan d a rd b y“ d e m o n stra t[ in g ] th a t re a so n a b le j u r i s t s wo u l d fi n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ' s a s s e s s me n to f th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms debat abl e orw r ong. ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 338 ( 2003) ( quot i ng Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U. S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . I n c o n d u c t i n g o u ra n a l y s i s , we need onl yengage i n “an ove r vi ew of the cl ai m s i n the . . . pet i t i on and a ge ner al as s es s m entof thei rm er i t s ” r atherthan “f ul l cons i der at i on of the fa ctual orl egal bas es adduce d i n s uppor tof the cl ai m s . ” Mi l l e r - El , 537 U . S. at336. Re a s o n a b l e j u r i s t s wo u l d n o tfi n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ' s ru l i n g o n De L eo n -F ern an d ez ' s co n sti tuti o n al claim s d ispu table o r i n co rrect. T h e d istri ct co u rt ru led th a t Ap

p re n d i and B la ke ly coul d notaffectD e Leon- Fernandez ’ s s ent ence b e c a u s e th e ya p p ly to s ta te ra th e r t h a n fe d e ra l s e n te n c e s . S e e B la ke ly , 542 U . S. at 3 0 5 . T h e d istric t co u rt a lso h e ld th a t B ookercoul d notchange D e LeonFernandez ’ s s ent ence beca us e i t s hol di ng w as r etr oact i ve onl yt o cas es on di r ect re v ie w . See Booker , 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 6 6 . A n d w e h a v e h e ld th a t B ookeri s not-4-

re tr o a c tiv e in c a s e s o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . Un i t e dS ta t e s v . B e l la my , 411 F. 3d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). R e a so n a b le ju rists th e re fo re w o u ld n o t d e b a te w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourt ' s anal y s i s w as “contr aryt o . . . cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw . ” See 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ); Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8 , 6 9 7 (1 9 8 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly, w e a d o p t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s re a s o n in g . I I I . C oncl usi on Forthes e r eas ons , D e Leon- Fernandez has fai l ed t o m ake a s uffi ci ent s h o wi n g th a th e i s e n t i t l e d t o a CO A. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we DE NY De L e o n -F e rn a n d e z ' s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge