Court Opinion

ID: 9957457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 16:01:11.895468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:20.754896
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-8053     Document: 010111026755         Date Filed: 04/04/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                                April 4, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 23-8053
                                                     (D.C. Nos. 1:23-CV-00107-SWS &
  DAVID ISAIAH GIBSON,                                    1:18-CR-00041-SWS-2)
                                                                 (D. Wyo.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

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

        David Isaiah Gibson, proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of appealability

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

 vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

        In 2018, Mr. Gibson pleaded guilty to one count of carrying a firearm during and

 in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The

 district court sentenced him to 144 months’ imprisonment. In 2023, he filed his § 2255

 motion. Asserting that § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) carried a maximum punishment of five years, he

 argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the 144-month sentence.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-8053     Document: 010111026755         Date Filed: 04/04/2024        Page: 2

        The district court found Mr. Gibson’s conviction became final on November 2,

 2018. It held the § 2255 motion was time-barred because it was filed more than one year

 after that date. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). The court further noted that Mr. Gibson

 misinterpreted the statutory punishment provisions, because for a violation of

 § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), a five-year sentence is a minimum punishment, not a maximum

 punishment. It dismissed the § 2255 motion and denied a COA.

        To appeal, Mr. Gibson must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). To do

 that, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id.

 § 2253(c)(2). Here, the district court denied relief on both a procedural ground and the

 merits. For a COA, therefore, Mr. Gibson must show that reasonable jurists would find

 both rulings to be debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We

 construe Mr. Gibson’s pro se filings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. Yang v.

 Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

        Mr. Gibson’s combined opening brief and application for COA does not address

 the district court’s conclusion that his § 2255 motion was untimely. He thus necessarily

 fails to show that reasonable jurists would debate whether the court correctly determined

 the motion was time-barred. In addition, the argument he does make—that he was

 sentenced above the statutory maximum penalty—fails to show reasonable jurists would

 find the district court’s merits decision to be debatable. The court was indisputably

 correct in noting the five-year term of imprisonment applicable to a violation of

 § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) is a minimum term, not a maximum. See United States v. Cudjoe,

 634 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining that, after amendments in 1998,

                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-8053     Document: 010111026755         Date Filed: 04/04/2024     Page: 3

 § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) carries “a minimum five-year sentence” and “the sentencing range for a

 violation of § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) extends to life imprisonment”); see also United States v.

 O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218, 232 (2010) (recognizing that the 1998 amendments “changed

 what were once mandatory sentences into mandatory minimum sentences”).

        We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We grant Mr. Gibson’s motion to

 proceed without prepayment of costs and fees.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Carolyn B. McHugh
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              3