Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180702_0001402.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:16:38+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the Court, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, on Defendant Juan Arvizo-Pena's January 19, 2018 letter, which has been recharacterized as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [CR Doc. 29; see also CR Doc. 28] Defendant's § 2255 motion is a second or successive motion filed without the requisite authorization of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, a certificate of appealability will be denied, and judgment will be entered.
On February 10, 2015, Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b) and sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons. [CR Docs. 17, 18] Defendant did not file a direct appeal and, therefore, his conviction became final fourteen days later, on February 24, 2015. See United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2006) ("If the defendant does not file an appeal, the criminal conviction becomes final upon the expiration of the time in which to take a direct criminal appeal."); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (providing that "a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 days after ... the entry of... the judgment").
The Court concludes that Defendant's § 2255 motion lacks merit because it is not based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law. Indeed, Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel and excessive sentence claims were raised in his prior § 2255 proceeding. Defendant's § 2255 motion will therefore be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas proceeding, the court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability." Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, an applicant must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Reasonable jurists could not debate this Court's conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction over Defendant's second or successive § 2255 motion and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will be denied.

References: § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2253
 v. 
 § 2255