Court Opinion

ID: 9375035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:01:01.823353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.234674
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6190     Document: 010110817548         Date Filed: 02/24/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            February 24, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 22-6190
                                                       (D.C. Nos. 5:22-CV-00598-D &
  LARENZO GABOUREL,                                         5:15-CR-00172-D-2)
                                                                (W.D. Okla.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Larenzo Gabourel, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of

 appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set

 aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

 (requiring a COA to appeal an order denying a § 2255 motion). Exercising jurisdiction

 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), we deny Mr. Gabourel’s request for a COA and

 dismiss this matter.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
        1
         Because Mr. Gabourel is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally, but
 do not serve as his advocate. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
 curiam); James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
Appellate Case: 22-6190     Document: 010110817548          Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 2

                                    I. BACKGROUND

                               A. Underlying Criminal Case

        A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Gabourel for (1) conspiracy to possess with

 intent to distribute phencyclidine (“PCP”), (2) possession of PCP with intent to distribute

 (or aiding and abetting the same), and (3) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug

 trafficking crime. A jury found him guilty of all charges. The district court sentenced

 him to 180 months in prison. See United States v. Gabourel, 692 F. App’x 529, 533-34

 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished).

        On direct appeal, Mr. Gabourel argued the evidence was insufficient to support his

 convictions. Id. at 531. In June 2017, we affirmed, noting that “Mr. Gabourel ha[d]

 failed to show that no rational juror could have convicted him of” the charged offenses

 based on the evidence adduced at trial. Id. at 549.

                                   B. Section 2255 Motion

        In July 2022, Mr. Gabourel moved for relief under § 2255 claiming he had

 obtained new exculpatory evidence: Mr. Alvin Norman’s sworn statement dated January

 17, 2022 “attesting to [Mr. Gabourel’s] alleged innocence of all charges and explaining

 [Mr. Gabourel’s] presence at the apartment where PCP was kept and his association with

 the codefendants selling PCP.” ROA, Vol. IV at 103.2 Mr. Norman was a codefendant

        2
          Although Mr. Gabourel filed his motion well beyond the one-year statute of
 limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), he relies on § 2255(f)(4) to toll the deadline based
 on when he could have discovered his new evidence. The Government has not
 challenged the timeliness of his § 2255 motion.

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-6190      Document: 010110817548            Date Filed: 02/24/2023   Page: 3

 and had fled prosecution. He was a fugitive at the time of Mr. Gabourel’s trial. He later

 pled guilty to a drug distribution charge. Id. at 102, 104.

        The district court denied Mr. Gabourel’s § 2255 motion because (1) he “assert[ed]

 only a freestanding claim of actual innocence, which cannot provide a substantive basis

 for relief from his convictions,” id. at 105; and (2) his new evidence failed to establish

 actual innocence, id. at 105-06. The court also denied Mr. Gabourel a COA. Id. at 107.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

        A federal prisoner must obtain a COA to appeal a denial of habeas relief.

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(B). A COA requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a

 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The movant must demonstrate “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).

        Mr. Gabourel argues that new evidence demonstrating actual innocence entitles

 him to relief. Actual innocence may allow habeas review of procedurally-barred

 constitutional claims, but neither the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized it as a

 freestanding ground for relief. In Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), the Supreme

 Court held that “a claim of ‘actual innocence’ is not itself a constitutional claim, but

 instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise

 barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.” Id. at 404; see LaFevers v. Gibson,

 238 F.3d 1263, 1265 n.4 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n assertion of actual innocence, although

 operating as a potential pathway for reaching otherwise defaulted constitutional claims,

                                               3
Appellate Case: 22-6190      Document: 010110817548        Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 4

 does not, standing alone, support the granting of the writ of habeas corpus.”); see also

 Farrar v. Raemisch, 924 F.3d 1126, 1130-31 (10th Cir. 2019).

        Mr. Gabourel, citing McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), argues “the

 Supreme Court has made clear . . . that a[n innocence] claim such as [his] should be

 avai[l]able through habeas corpus.” Aplt. Br. at 7. But in McQuiggin, the Court said it

 had “not resolved whether a prisoner may be entitled to habeas relief based on a

 freestanding claim of actual innocence.” 569 U.S. at 392; see also Case v. Hatch,

 731 F.3d 1015, 1036 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[I]n Herrera, the Court refused to endorse

 [a freestanding actual innocence] habeas claim, and, as yet, it is an open question whether

 such a federal right exists.”).

        We have consistently denied habeas relief based on actual innocence alone.

 See, e.g., Farrar, 924 F.3d at 1131 (“[A]ctual innocence does not constitute a

 freestanding basis for habeas relief.”); Vreeland v. Zupan, 906 F.3d 866, 883 n.6 (10th

 Cir. 2018) (same) (citing LaFevers, 238 F.3d at 1265 n.4); United States v. Toki, 822 F.

 App’x 848, 853-54 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (applying the same in a § 2255

 proceeding) (cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A)),

 vacated on other grounds, sub nom. Maumau v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 57 (2021).3

        3
          When no relief is available under federal statute, we have left open whether a
 prisoner may attempt to seek relief from a final criminal conviction when new cause
 arises through a writ of audita querela pled under the All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C.
 § 1651(a). See United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 n.6 (10th Cir. 2002);
 Rawlins v. Kansas, 714 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (10th Cir. 2013).

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-6190     Document: 010110817548         Date Filed: 02/24/2023     Page: 5

        Mr. Gabourel has not shown that jurists of reason could disagree with the district

 court’s denial of his § 2255 motion.4

                                    III. CONCLUSION

        We deny Mr. Gabourel’s application for a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                               Circuit Judge

        4
          Mr. Gabourel asserts the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing
 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), which provides that a district court must hold an evidentiary
 hearing on a § 2255 motion “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case
 conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” Because a district court’s
 denial of an evidentiary hearing would be reviewed for abuse of discretion during a
 merits appeal, the Supreme Court has accepted a formulation of “the COA question” as
 “whether a reasonable jurist could conclude that the District Court abused its discretion.”
 Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 123 (2017) (citation omitted). Where, as here, a habeas
 claim is capable of being resolved on the existing record, there is no entitlement to an
 evidentiary hearing. See Torres v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1145, 1161 (10th Cir. 2003). A
 reasonable jurist could not conclude the district court abused its discretion in not holding
 an evidentiary hearing. We decline to grant a COA on this issue.

                                              5