Court Opinion

ID: 9911234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 19:00:56.657303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:05.891423
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1144     Document: 010110971099         Date Filed: 12/19/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           December 19, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 23-1144
                                                     (D.C. Nos. 1:20-CV-00485-REB &
  JORGE LOYA-RAMIREZ,                                    1:15-CR-00272-REB-13)
                                                                 (D. Colo.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Jorge Loya-Ramirez, proceeding pro se,1 seeks a certificate of appealability

 (COA) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We deny a COA and dismiss this appeal.

                                      I. Background

        Mr. Loya-Ramirez was indicted for drug conspiracy, possession with intent to

 distribute methamphetamine, and use of communication facilities in furtherance of his

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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. Loya-Ramirez appears pro se, we liberally construe his filings.
 Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we
 do not make arguments for pro se litigants or otherwise advocate on their behalf. Id.
Appellate Case: 23-1144     Document: 010110971099           Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 2

 drug trafficking. A jury acquitted him of the use-of-communication counts but convicted

 him on all other counts. He was sentenced to life in prison. On direct appeal, he

 contended he was entitled to a new trial based on allegedly improper comments made by

 the prosecutor during closing argument. See United States v. Loya-Ramirez,

 766 F. App’x 681, 682 (10th Cir. 2019). We rejected his argument and affirmed.

        The charges against Mr. Loya-Ramirez stemmed from a traffic stop that revealed

 cocaine and methamphetamine in a hidden compartment behind the glove box. As we

 noted on direct appeal, the evidence against Mr. Loya-Ramirez was “compelling” and

 “overwhelming.” Id. at 682, 685. “[I]n addition to the fact that law enforcement

 discovered illegal drugs in a vehicle he was driving, the government also presented

 evidence of his guilt in the form of surveillance videos, phone calls, text messages, and

 the testimony of four of his coconspirators.” Id. at 685.

        Mr. Loya-Ramirez then filed a § 2255 motion, in which he asserted several claims

 of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion in a written

 order. Mr. Loya-Ramirez now seeks a COA.

                                        II. Discussion

        A. Standard for Obtaining COA

        To receive a COA, Mr. Loya-Ramirez must make “a substantial showing of the

 denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and must show “that reasonable

 jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different

 manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

 further,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-1144      Document: 010110971099          Date Filed: 12/19/2023      Page: 3

 Because the district court denied Mr. Loya-Ramirez’s claims on the merits, he “must

 demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

 constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id.

        B. Ineffective Assistance Claims

        A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires that counsel’s performance

 “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

 668, 688 (1984). If the defendant clears this hurdle, he next must show that “the deficient

 performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687. Prejudice in this context means “there

 is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the

 proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.

        Mr. Loya-Ramirez requests a COA on four ineffective assistance claims.2 First,

 he claims his trial attorneys were ineffective because they failed to object or move for a

 mistrial based on the prosecutor’s improper comments during closing argument. We

 addressed those comments on direct appeal and held that given the strength of the

 evidence Mr. Loya-Ramirez could not show that but for the improper comments the

 result of the trial would have been different. Loya-Ramirez, 766 F. App’x at 684, 685-86.

        2
          As an initial matter, Mr. Loya-Ramirez argues he need not show prejudice
 because the constitutional violations in this case were so egregious. Under United States
 v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), prejudice can be presumed where (1) the defendant is
 completely denied counsel at a critical stage of trial, (2) counsel fails completely to
 subject the government’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, or (3) the circumstances
 were such that it is unlikely any attorney could have provided effective assistance. Id.
 at 659-60. We agree with the district court that none of these categories is applicable,
 and no reasonable jurist would conclude otherwise.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-1144     Document: 010110971099           Date Filed: 12/19/2023       Page: 4

 He correspondingly cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of a Strickland claim premised on

 his counsel’s failure to object to the improper comments.

        Second, Mr. Loya-Ramirez claims his counsel was ineffective because they

 failed to file a timely motion to suppress the drugs found during the traffic stop. But

 he does not identify any argument his lawyers should have made that would have

 changed the outcome. He argues the traffic stop was illegal, but the evidence showed

 the police stopped the car because its license plate was registered to a white car and

 Mr. Loya-Ramirez’s car was orange. He contends the subsequent search was illegal, but

 a police officer testified that Mr. Loya-Ramirez consented to the search. He argues his

 counsel should have challenged the legality of a GPS tracker the police installed on his

 car before the traffic stop. The installation, however, had been approved by a judge and

 Mr. Loya-Ramirez does not suggest any argument his counsel should have pursued.

        Third, Mr. Loya-Ramirez claims his counsel’s performance fell below an objective

 standard of reasonableness with respect to Luis Granados-Ordonez, a coconspirator

 who testified for the government. Mr. Loya-Ramirez generally observes that

 Mr. Granados-Ordonez seemed well prepared and testified effectively, but he does not

 specify what an objectively reasonable attorney should have done in the face of such

 testimony. On the other hand, as the district court pointed out, his counsel impeached

 Mr. Granados-Ordonez by highlighting the benefits he received from the government

 in return for his testimony. Mr. Loya-Ramirez has not shown that his counsel’s

 cross-examination of Mr. Granados-Ordonez was objectively unreasonable.

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-1144     Document: 010110971099          Date Filed: 12/19/2023      Page: 5

        Finally, Mr. Loya-Ramirez claims his appellate counsel should have argued the

 district court erred in declining to postpone the trial to allow his counsel adequate time to

 prepare. He argues the district court’s rejection of that claim is based on a

 misrepresentation of fact. The district court noted that one of his attorneys, Courtland

 Williams, had been on the case for six months. But Mr. Williams had moved to

 withdraw based on his lack of experience and resources (a motion he later withdrew), and

 Mr. Loya-Ramirez therefore speculates he had not been preparing for trial and only began

 preparing in the last few days before trial. This argument, however, is inconsistent with

 the trial record, which reflects that his counsel put on a vigorous defense and presented a

 viable defense theory. Indeed, despite the strength of the evidence, the jury acquitted

 Mr. Loya-Ramirez on several counts. Mr. Loya-Ramirez simply cannot show the

 outcome of his appeal would have changed if his appellate counsel had made this

 argument.

        In short, no reasonable jurist would find the district court’s assessment of

 Mr. Loya-Ramirez’s ineffective assistance claims debatable or wrong.

                                       III. Conclusion

        We deny the request for a COA and dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion for

 leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Gregory A. Phillips
                                               Circuit Judge

                                               5