Court Opinion

ID: 9926739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 17:00:42.737722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:21.092968
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1202     Document: 010110989891         Date Filed: 01/25/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            January 25, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                           No. 23-1202
                                                    (D.C. Nos. 1:20-CV-03280-WJM &
  VINCENT MATHEWS,                                       1:16-CR-00129-WJM-1)
                                                                (D. Colo.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

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

        Vincent Mathews, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of

 appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order denying him relief under

 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                     BACKGROUND

        Mr. Mathews was convicted in 2017 on two counts of interference with commerce

 by robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and one count of being a felon in possession of a

 firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to 210 months’

 imprisonment, and this court affirmed his convictions.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
Appellate Case: 23-1202       Document: 010110989891         Date Filed: 01/25/2024   Page: 2

        In November 2020, Mr. Mathews filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging

 ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. He claimed his

 trial attorney failed to tell him about incriminating evidence in the Government’s

 possession, specifically GPS data placing him at the crime scene and a recording of a 911

 call. Claiming surprise when this evidence was introduced at trial, Mr. Mathews argued

 he would have elected to plead guilty had he known the strength of the Government’s

 case. He asked the district court to vacate his sentence and resentence him in accordance

 with the Government’s plea offer.1 Mr. Mathews also indicated that he would follow up

 his motion with a supplemental filing containing supporting evidence.2 In response, the

 Government disputed Mr. Mathews’s contention that he was unaware of the GPS

 evidence and 911 calls, noting that such evidence was the subject of lengthy pretrial

 litigation, including a hearing attended by Mr. Mathews. The Government also pointed

 out that Mr. Mathews had provided neither details about the alleged plea offer nor

 evidence he would have accepted it.

        On November 25, 2020, Mr. Mathews did in fact file a supplement entitled

 “Petitioner’s Timely Memorandum in Support of His [] Now-Pending Motion to Vacate,

 Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [] Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Suppl. R. at 29

 (Supplemental Memorandum). The Supplemental Memorandum contained legal

 arguments and citations in support of Mr. Mathews’s Sixth Amendment claim and

        1
            Mr. Mathews provided no details as to the contents of that offer.
        2
        Mr. Mathews’s original filing under § 2255 was submitted via a standardized
 form “AO 243” provided by the Federal Judiciary.
                                                2
Appellate Case: 23-1202     Document: 010110989891          Date Filed: 01/25/2024       Page: 3

 elaborated on his previously asserted factual allegations; it also attached several pages of

 exhibits. Mr. Mathews’s sister, Nina Mathews, signed the Supplemental Memorandum.

 Although she is not an attorney, Ms. Mathews asserted that she signed the document as

 “next friend” of Mr. Mathews who lacked access to the prison library, copy machine, and

 mailroom due to COVID-19 lockdown measures. In a response filed December 7, 2020,

 the Government urged the court to strike the Supplemental Memorandum for failure to

 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Under that rule, “[e]very pleading,

 written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the

 attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

 11(a). The rule instructs the district court to “strike an unsigned paper unless the

 omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.”

 Id. In a reply dated December 14, 2020, Mr. Mathews reiterated his arguments in support

 of his ineffective-assistance claim and attached additional pages of evidentiary support.

 He did not address the Government’s request to strike his Supplemental Memorandum.

        On October 12, 2021, the district court issued an order denying the § 2255 motion,

 dismissing Mr. Mathews’s claims with prejudice, and denying a COA. The court

 considered the merits of Mr. Mathews’s ineffective-assistance claim but found it both

 factually and legally deficient. The court found his claim regarding the GPS evidence

 belied by the record: “Mathews concedes—and the docket confirms—that his attorney

 did disclose the [GPS] evidence, even if the Government presented it at trial in a manner

 that Mathews did not anticipate.” Suppl. R. at 72. And with respect to both the GPS

 evidence and the 911 recording, the court held that even if his counsel had failed to

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-1202      Document: 010110989891          Date Filed: 01/25/2024      Page: 4

 disclose this evidence, Mr. Mathews had failed to show prejudice. The court explained

 Mr. Mathews had provided no details concerning the alleged plea offer that he rejected,

 much less evidence that he would have accepted it. “Rather, he submit[ted] only the

 unadorned assertion that he would have pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement

 rather than proceed to trial.” Id. at 74 (internal quotation marks omitted). This, the court

 concluded, was “insufficient to demonstrate prejudice.” Id. (citing United States v.

 Watson, 766 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2014)). It therefore denied relief under § 2255,

 concluding Mr. Mathews had failed to make the requisite showing of a Sixth Amendment

 violation under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In addition, the court

 struck the Supplemental Memorandum under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a)

 because it was signed by neither Mr. Mathews nor an attorney of record.

        On May 3, 2023, the district court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by

 Mr. Mathews under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Mr. Mathews then filed a

 timely application for a COA in this court.

                                        DISCUSSION

        “The issuance of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from the

 denial of an issue raised in a § 2255 motion.” United States v. Gonzalez, 596 F.3d 1228,

 1241 (10th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). To obtain a COA, the

 applicant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

 § 2253(c)(2). To make that showing, he “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could

 debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the particular issue raised in the petition

 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issue presented was adequate

                                                4
Appellate Case: 23-1202     Document: 010110989891          Date Filed: 01/25/2024      Page: 5

 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Gonzalez, 596 F.3d at 1241 (internal

 quotation marks and brackets omitted).

        Mr. Mathews has not even attempted to make that showing here. As a pro se

 litigant Mr. Mathews is of course entitled to a liberal construction of his filings. Watkins

 v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624, 625 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). But the court will not act as his

 attorney and construct his arguments for him. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,

 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). And “an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse

 the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal

 Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455

 (10th Cir. 1994). Even liberally construed, Mr. Mathews’s COA application contains no

 argument challenging the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claim. As

 previously noted, the district court considered the § 2255 motion on the merits and held

 Mr. Mathews had failed to show ineffective assistance on the part of his trial counsel.

 Mr. Mathews does not challenge this holding or offer any reason why reasonable jurists

 might debate its correctness. He has therefore failed to make the required showing under

 § 2253(c)(2) and forfeited potential appellate consideration of this issue. Bronson v.

 Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007).

        Mr. Mathews devotes the entirety of his brief to the part of the district court order

 striking the Supplemental Memorandum. He attacks this ruling on multiple grounds,

                                              5
Appellate Case: 23-1202     Document: 010110989891         Date Filed: 01/25/2024        Page: 6

 essentially arguing the district court should have allowed him to cure the defect3 and that

 his sister’s signature was acceptable under the “next-friend doctrine.” We are not at

 liberty to address this argument on a COA application, the granting of which “requires an

 underlying constitutional claim.” United States v. Mulay, 805 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir.

 2015). “Our precedent is clear that a claim of error concerning statutory interpretation is

 insufficient to warrant a COA . . . .” Id. Accordingly, to the extent Mr. Mathews

 requests a COA to challenge the district court’s application of Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure 11(a), we must deny that request.

        Mr. Mathews contends the striking of the Supplemental Memorandum “effectively

 denied [him] his day in court.” COA Appl. at 10. But even construed liberally as a due

 process claim properly raised on a COA application, we must reject this argument

 because Mr. Mathews fails to explain how he was prejudiced by the court’s action. See

 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977) (“[P]roof of prejudice is generally a

 necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim.”). Although he makes

 numerous claims of error concerning the stricken memorandum, nowhere does

 Mr. Mathews contend the district court failed to consider any of his substantive

 arguments. Nor could he. Contrary to Mr. Mathews’s contention, the district court did

 not deny his § 2255 motion on procedural grounds or because it believed jurisdiction was

        3
        We note the district court’s order came almost a year after the Government
 moved to strike the Supplemental Memorandum. Mr. Mathews does not explain why he
 made no effort to cure the defective filing in that ten-month period.

                                               6
Appellate Case: 23-1202      Document: 010110989891           Date Filed: 01/25/2024      Page: 7

 lacking.4 The court carefully considered all arguments made in support of the § 2255

 motion and denied relief on the merits.

        The court struck the Supplemental Memorandum for failure to comply with

 Rule 11(a). But there is no indication—and Mr. Mathews does not argue—that the

 Supplemental Memorandum contained unique arguments not otherwise asserted and

 considered. To the contrary, the Supplemental Memorandum merely repeated the claims

 in Mr. Mathews’s original filing—that his counsel’s “misadvice” regarding the

 Government’s possession of incriminating evidence “caused him to pass on a guilty plea

 [] that he otherwise would have accepted.” COA Appl. at 8 (describing the arguments

 made in the Supplemental Memorandum). Because the district court explicitly

 considered and rejected this contention, Mr. Mathews cannot show that he was prejudiced

 by the order striking the Supplemental Memorandum.

                                       CONCLUSION

        By failing to address the district court’s ruling on his Sixth Amendment claim,

 Mr. Mathews has necessarily failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

 constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). The district court’s application of Federal Rule of

 Civil Procedure 11(a) is not a proper basis for granting a COA. And to the extent

 Mr. Mathews attempts to assert a due process violation stemming from the stricken

        4
           Mr. Mathews makes several references to the district court’s jurisdiction and
 how striking the Supplemental Memorandum might have affected it. See, e.g., COA
 Appl. at 13 (“The district court erroneously struck [the Supplemental Memorandum]
 without issuing an Order directing him to cure the deficiency . . . which would have
 established jurisdiction irrespective of his sister’s standing.”); see also id. at 15 (“[T]he
 district court had jurisdiction because his sister Nina was a proper next friend . . . .”).
                                                7
Appellate Case: 23-1202     Document: 010110989891          Date Filed: 01/25/2024   Page: 8

 supplement, his failure to show prejudice, again, means he has failed to make a

 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

        The COA application is DENIED and this matter is dismissed.

        Mr. Mathews’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Allison H. Eid
                                               Circuit Judge

                                               8